Some years preceding his multiple prosecutions in 1984, Mr. Condo went
down to a bank, and initiated an Equity relationship with that corporation and the King.
Yes, Commercial contracts in effect with banks are invisible juristic contracts in effect
with the King. In the Armen Condo Letter, I mentioned that banks are in a special Status
with the King, and likewise so are the individual people who experience profit and gain
from any Commercial contract they enter into with a bank. This relational effect of doing
business in King's Commerce is pronounced quite clearly in the Instrumentality Doctrine
the Supreme Court initiated publicly with Davis vs. Elmira Savings:

"National banks are instrumentalities of the Federal Government, created for a
public purpose, and as such necessarily subject to the paramount authority of the United
States."[1]

This Instrumentality Doctrine is very significant, and the word Instrumentality
means an Equity Relationship that is quite strong in American Jurisprudence. As nationally
chartered banks are the Instrumentality of the Congress, consider the subordinate Party
(the banks) as being the "right hand" of the Master (the Congress). This is a
very powerful Doctrine indeed, and it needs to be understood for what it really means. In
the Armen Condo Letter, I mentioned that, from a Judicial Perspective, any profit or gain
experienced from a bank carries with it the same identical full force and effect as if the
King himself created the gain. Consider, for a moment, the application of the
Instrumentality Rule to corporations:

"Under this Rule, corporate existence will be disregarded where a corporate
subsidiary is so organized and controlled and its affairs so conducted as to make it only
an adjunct and instrumentality of another parent corporation."[2]

Now think what happens if the King is substituted for the parent corporation, and
your local bank is substituted for the subsidiary corporation. Under the Instrumentality
Doctrine, the local bank as a Person and a legal entity fades away in significance as if
it was transparent, and the King and the Secretary of the Treasury then appear as the real
contracting Persons you are entering into Commercial agreements with. Are you beginning to
see the legal significance of this Doctrine? Are you beginning to appreciate the deeper
meanings of the bank account in that it is the King that you are really contracting into
Commerce with, and the bank is just the King's local agent? That bank is literally the
private personal property of the King. Entrepreneurs who go out and capitalize a new bank
from scratch do not own that bank. The bank is owned by the King who created the
corporation, and his Comptroller of the Currency later issued out a banking charter to;
and the individual shareholders only hold an equitable interest in the bank's operations.[3]

The shareholders are only entitled to a limited withdrawal of some of the bank's
net earnings, under some limited circumstances.[4]

Many incarcerated Protestors were unaware of the existence of the Commercial
contract that they were into, and so having the strong political views that they do, their
political feelings, skewing off on a defiant tangent, retained the upper hand over their
better judgment -- an inquisitive judgment that would be searching for answers to
questions. So although the Protestors was at one time unaware of the existence of a
contract being in effect, the King was very much aware, and so the Protestor's defiant
behavior is increasingly improvident when viewed from the perspective that the Commercial
contract was written to strongly favor the King, and is interstitially dispersed
throughout with penal clauses in esse for no more than mere administrative
negligence and default, and any outs that exist for persons in default are the unintended
default technical errors that the King's lex statutes can correct at the discretion
of the Congress.

Today, great Tax Protesting Patriots like Condo, Schiff, and Saussey -- who have
established themselves in forward political positions -- have the strong advantage of
learning in advance the single most important fundamental starting point in this Life; a
starting point that most other folks won't even know of until it is too late; a starting
point that bifurcates the Law of Judgment into two great subdivisions; Tort and Contract.
Unknown to the world at large, Heavenly Father has invisible Celestial Contracts operating
on us all, just like the King had multiple layers of Commercial and invisible political
contracts operating on Schiff, Condo, and Saussey (I will discuss those layers later on).
Maybe I am missing something somewhere, but I wish someone would explain to me the
prudence of Armen Condo's modus operandi, as I cannot find any; when presented with
such valuable information (that invisible contracts were actually in effect) Armen Condo
summarily rebuffed that information without any inquiry being made into its authenticity.
I had told Armen something he did not want to hear in his non-teachable state of mind; and
in ways similar to those invisible juristic contracts the King has on us that so few
people know much about, likewise our previous existence First Estate Contracts with Father
cast a regulatory contract jurisdiction over us all, and all contract jurisdictions always
call for our being self damaged by our own mere neglectful technical default, nonchalant
indifference swirling in carefree insouciance, and miscellaneous compliance deflection
Tort Law rationalizations:

"... yea, I lived with her for a while -- she was nice, but there was
no damages nowhere and everyone consented -- so Father can't hold that against me."

And just as Schiff, Condo, and Saussey were given unpleasant advance introductions
into what a contract Star Chamber is all about, so too will the Last Day be a Contract
Star Chamber -- the worst imaginable to those who have used Tort Law behavioral defense
arguments down here, as a well sculptured slice of meat was repetitively bewitched into an
elevated state of enchantment ("Gee, I didn't damage anyone").[5]

But the Last Day will also be transparent for those who entered into, and were
successfully tried under, Father's New and Everlasting Covenant; for these, the
Last Day will be a smooth procedural formality, nothing that should be of any impending
concern.[6]

To Heathens and agnostics, who spent their time playing with their own salvation
down here by fighting and resisting what they will then view as something as simple as
giving Father what he wanted, there will be no opportunity then to throw multiple
exploratory defense lines at Father by going through multiple judgements, but much to our
advantage we can have all the prosecutions thrown at us that we want down here, to
repetitively argue our defense lines before Judges over and over again; and it is for this
reason that incarcerated Protestors will one day look back and be ever grateful that the
consequential significance of being in mere technical default on invisible contracts was
driven into them, under such strong circumstances.[7]

Yes, today, Condo, Schiff, and Saussey are either in a cage, or close to being
thrown into one, because of their default in juristic contracts; tomorrow - after they
have opened their eyes, they will go forth and inherit, create, and preside over
Thrones, Dominions, and Worlds Without End, also by Contract. Having known the
bitter Agony, they can cleave to the Celestial Ecstasy; in both cases, contracts were the
initiating catalytic instrumentality.

This banking Instrumentality Doctrine is a pretty strong relational status
for the Judiciary to take cognizance of, so when we probe back down the line to uncover
why chartered banks are in such a status, we should not be too surprised to uncover our
old friend: A contract.[8]

Originally applicable only to nationally chartered banks, the Instrumentality
Doctrine has since been expanded under the enlarging regulatory penumbra of the
Federal Reserve Act of 1913 to include all state and Federally chartered member banks of
the Fed. During the Depression, banks who became members of the FDIC and FSLIC insurance
programs were deemed Instrumentalities, and this doctrine is now applied in the United
States to include all financial institutions where there is any Federal regulatory
interest in them. This now includes stock brokerage houses, credit unions, insurance
companies, and pension funds. (For example, people acquiring a Merrill Lynch Cash
Management Account, which is a negotiable withdrawal instrument, are in the same Juris tic
Personality Status (in King's Commerce) with a Merrill Lynch checking account that they
are with a checking account from any conventional depository banking institution, such as
Manufacturer's Hanover.) When a person initiates such a bank account relationship with the
King, an examination of Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure cases relating to account
records that banks send to depositors reveals that the Federal appellate judiciary
considers the Fourth Amendment to be non-applicable to Seized bank account records.[9]

In those cases, the Supreme Court will talk about how Courts cannot exclude
evidence under the Fourth Amendment unless that Court finds that an unlawful Search or
Seizure violated the defendant's own Constitutional rights. But that the Constitutional
rights of criminal defendants, who are being hanged with their own bank account
statements, are violated only when the Search and Seizure conduct violated the defendant's
own legitimate expectation of privacy, rather than that of a third party.[10]

Since the "zone of privacy" inherent in the Papers Clause of the Fourth
Amendment does not facially protect information you have deposited into the hands of third
parties, like banking institutions,[11] Federal Courts
find it unnecessary to probe any deeper and explicitly tell you the real underlying reason
why bank accounts fall outside the protective penumbra of the Fourth Amendment; Because a
Commercial contract is in effect, and the Bill of Rights cannot be held to interfere with
or obstruct the contemporary execution of Commercial contracts, for either party (and
properly so). But wait, as those Supreme Court cases dealt with bank accounts Seized from
a bank itself, and banks as regulated Commercial establishments have no Fourth Amendment
rights whatever. So there are no privacy rights in any information you deposit with those
banks, and this remains true whether or not there was a Commercial contract in effect or
not. Hmmm. But what if those bank account records were Seized from a person's home where
the Fourth Amendment does apply? Now what? The Fourth Amendment still does not apply, and
properly so.[12]

This is what is really meant when the bank account evidence taken from a patently
unlawful residential Search and Seizure in a person's home is deemed admissible, even
though the Fourth Amendment's Exclusionary Rule would otherwise attach if the property
that was seized did not belong to the King (guns, cocaine, etc.). Federal Judges will

skew their Seizure of bank accounts annulment justifications off to the side and
talk about the "special facts in this case" when annulling Fourth Amendment
rights on bank account records unlawfully Seized from a residence.[13]

And now we are finally getting down to the one real reason why the Bill of Rights
in general, and the Fourth Amendment, in particular, means absolutely nothing when a bank
account is involved with a contested Search and Seizure; this special reason is never
talked about by law schools; and this reason is not to be found anywhere in any law book
in any library that I am acquainted with: But the reason is, as stated, because a
Commercial contract with the King is in effect, and so as a point of beginning, the Bill
of Rights is irrelevant from the scratch, and properly so; but you will never hear that
explicit explanation from anyone else, other than George Mercier. Never in any Court
Opinion is there any blunt discussion of Commercial contracts being in effect; rather,
Judges will continue to focus distracting attention and discussions around the Fourth
Amendment, creating the potential image, in some peripheral factual setting cases, that
the Fourth Amendment is the center of gravity here, rather than the Commercial contract
itself. Yet it is very proper and correct that the Bill of Rights should not be allowed to
interfere with, obstruct, intervene, or otherwise restrain the execution or operation of
contemporary Commercial contracts --for either party; but getting an official admission
like that from a Federal Judge will result in a can of worms being opened up (as they
perceive it), a can of worms they don't want to talk about and deal with in the future.[14]

Additionally, but to a lesser extent, those bank account records are the private
personal property of the King, and so it is irrational that the King cannot reclaim his
own property whenever he feels like it, all pursuant to the terms of the bank account
contract.[15]

Those are the real reasons why the Fourth and Fifth Amendments are irrelevant in
bank account Administrative Seizures and in judicial prosecutions evidentiarily based on
bank accounts. Within the same line of Fourth Amendment cases, those Federal Judges will
also refer to bank accounts as being interstate merchant and Commercial instruments, but
never is there any discussion to be found anywhere on the special Equity Relationship in
effect between Persons entering into such Commercial contracts, and the King.

Some folks have taken the position that if they entered into Equity with the King
by signing a bank account card under Objection on the grounds of necessity, that Objection
somehow will vitiate future liability; but there is an inherent defect in that reasoning.
Unlike signing Driver's License applications under Objection and Notice of Duress to avoid
incarceration, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Right to Travel is a
Substantive and Fundamental Right that cannot be infringed upon, absent very strong and
compelling state interests; and there are state statutes which criminalize the act of an
unlicensed driver operating a motor vehicle down the road. Taking that Driver's License
scenario as a model and applying it to justify possessing bank accounts just does not cut
it. Bank accounts are not entered into to avoid incarceration, and banking is not a
Substantive Right, and direct personal financial profit and gain enrichment is experienced
when possessing bank accounts that is without parallel with a Driver's License. So, all
factors considered, the likelihood of escaping an Excise Tax liability by arguing bank
account possession by necessity, is remote. This remains true even though the California
Supreme Court ruled once that:

"For all practical purposes, the disclosure by individuals or business firms
of their financial affairs to a bank is not entirely volitional, since it is impossible to
participate in the economic life of contemporary society without maintaining a bank
account. In the course of such dealings, a depositor reveals many aspects of his personal
affairs, opinions, habits and associations. Indeed, the totality of bank records provides
a virtual current biography."[16]

The California Supreme Court is not a Federal Tribunal, and statements to the
effect that bank accounts are necessary for practical economic survival, and perhaps are
not purely volitional [volitional means freely choosing or will to do so, as in
making a decision], although an interesting perception of the passing scene, will in no
wise vitiate your legal liability to the adhesive Federal taxation reciprocity
expectations resident in Title 26.
Notice how the California Supreme Court did not say that possession of bank accounts under
a documented factual setting of economic survival annuls Title 26 liability. So let's not
read out of that state court what it does not say; and even if that state court did state
inferentially that possession by necessity annuls expectation of reciprocity liability in
areas of taxation, then the California Supreme Court is still not a Federal Judicial
Forum. Federal Judges are taught and trained certain things in those Seminars of theirs,
and that Bench Book of theirs makes the Government's position sound more than
reasonable, and so as a result, Federal Judges are collectively sensitive towards certain
things [such as the significance of a Commercial contract] that State Judges are
indifferent to.

This Davis vs. Elmira Savings Instrumentality Doctrine occasionally surfaces
in Supreme Court rulings, by sometimes being lightly mentioned in passing in obiter
dictum, such as in Anderson National Bank vs. Luckett,[17] and on other occasions, this Instrumentality Doctrine is bluntly
reaffirmed by the Supreme Court, as in Marquette National Bank vs. First of Omaha.[18] But if the Law of King's Commerce is correctly
understood, there is no need for the Supreme Court to reaffirm anything, as the
circulation of paper money, notes, or the circulation of any juristic currency, even
carrying intrinsic value, in King's Commerce (as distinguished from privately minted coins
and notes), has always been the closed private domain of the King of England. And it has
been the exclusive domain of the King ever since paper money was first printed and
circulated by King Richard II to finance an offensive war against France that Parliament
declined to levy taxes to wage.[19]

So the circulation of paper money by Gremlins through the instrumentality of kings,
was born in tortious fraud intended to damage people, and was designed to accomplish in
the practical setting (the damages of taxation by Inflation) what was not accomplished
legally on the Floor of Parliament by common consent.[20]
So paper money has been designed from the outset to damage people, and the unnecessary
circulation of paper money today in the United States carries along with it identical
underlying enscrewment objectives.[21]

Back in an era when the United States was the American Colonies, the Framers to our
Constitution never abated or restricted the King's standing right to issue out his own
money or to declare that someone else's money or notes are legal and tender for those
debts existing under the King's General Commerce Jurisdiction; and neither did the Framers
ever restrict the King's right to delegate any or all of the circulating process to a
third party (as arguments in this area of Federal Reserve Unconstitutionality Due to
Lack of Coinage Delegation Jurisdiction are in error). The Supreme Court has ruled
often that the Constitution of the United States must be applied today in light of English
Common Law then in effect at the time the Declaration of Independence was executed, and
properly so.[22]

"... Congress possesses all of the powers which existed in the States before
the adoption of the National Constitution, and which have always existed in the Parliament
in England."[23]

So let us briefly examine English Common Law and see just what type of monetary
powers the King of England had. Consider the following words from a landmark case in
1604:[24]

"[A]s the king by his prerogative may make money of what matter and form he
pleaseth, and establish the standard of it, so may he change his money in substance and
impression, and enhance or debase the value of it, or entirely decry and annul it...

"And so it is manifest, that the kings of England have always had and
exercised the prerogative of coining and changing the form, and when they found it
expedient of enhancing and debasing the value of money within their dominions; and this
prerogative is allowed and approved not only by the common law, but also by the rules of
the imperial law."[25]

And so if the King of England had the right to invoke Sovereignty Jurisdiction to
circulate debased currency, then so also does the Congress of the United States now have
similar Sovereignty Jurisdiction, absent an explicit and blunt jurisdictional restraining
mandate to the contrary in this charter, the Constitution -- paper currency restrainment
language which does not exist.[26]

Nowhere in our Constitution did the Framers state that "no paper currency
shall issue out of Congress," or "circulating currency is required to physically
contain gold and silver," and Patriot arguments to the effect that Article I, Section
10 constitutes such a restrainment are defective, as I will explain later on. Nor did the
Framers state that "monetary matters reside exclusively within the Congress, and
cannot be delegated..." Are you beginning to see what happens when some agreement is
reduced into writing? With the passage of time, oral expectations in effect at the time
the agreement was executed diminish away into nothingness, and only the exact, literal
content of the agreement, as written, means anything.[27]

Today when we enter into contracts with one another down here, as unforeseen
circumstances surface later on, regrets are always quietly expressed about how this or
that should have been originally included into the agreement. It was that way with Moses
and the Ten Commandments, it was that way with the United States Constitution of 1787, and
this attribute of Nature [of people enlarging their basis of factual knowledge over time,
and therefore also changing their desires] remains in full force and effect down to the
present day with Commercial contracts. An honest assessment of the Framers would suggest
that they were unable to guard against all possible evils, since they simply did not have,
then, the exposure to the magnitude of evil that we have had thrown at us today.

But as for currency[28] itself as we now have
it, synchronous with King Richard II's unsuccessful conquest against France in the 1300's
(and long before the King of England's chartering of the Bank of England in 1694 under
Gremlin prompting and intellectual guidance),[29] the
special sub rosa relationship that was developed between the circulation in King's
Commerce of paper money by the King and a grand Tort the King intends to work, still
remains in full force and effect down to the present day in the United States.[30]

Anglo-Saxon Kings have a long history of never bothering to stop pulling off
whatever they can get away with.[31] For example, in
the 1500's, the King of England (actually Queen Elizabeth) ordered a debasement of
Britain's national currency for the express purpose of working a Tort on rebels in
Ireland. This carefully planned currency debasement was explicitly designed to damage
these Irish adversaries of the Crown as an act of war. When these debased coins were
issued out all over England to the public at large, they became known as Mixed Money
due to the novel alloy composition in the coins, meaning a hybrid of part precious and
part ordinary metals. This degenerate mixed money was then sent by the King of England to
Ireland as a covert war military measure against the rebels there. The rebels were buying
supplies abroad, and they were making their purchases by using valuable Britannic gold and
silver coins, which always had an international allure to them, and properly so. So the
King decided that the best way to stop the rebels from making their arms purchases would
be by making their money unattractive to their suppliers, foreign gun runners.

In making their purchases of guns and armaments, the rebels had been obtaining
their gold and silver English Crown coins from loyal British subjects in the course of
ordinary dealings, and those subjects in turn had received it from Queen Elizabeth's
soldiers and others functioning as Crown distribution agents. So the King, knowing what he
does about using both devalued coin and soft paper currency to damage adversaries, simply
reduced the value of the money the rebels were getting, by clever debasement. Although
debasing the currency to damage a rebel out in some remote place carries the secondary
consequence of damaging loyal subjects who mean the Crown no harm; so as to not offend the
Crown's subjects, the Queen promised to redeem this debased money at face value later on
[sound familiar today?][32]

But as for the rebels in Ireland, now the debased Crown coins were being rejected
by the foreign gun runners as payment for goods they had been selling to the rebels, and
so, as the supplies to the rebels were cut off at the source in this slick and clever way,
the plans for conquest by the rebels was frustrated.[33]

The English Case of 1604 that I had quoted from above called the Mixed Money
Case was a challenge to the authority of the King of England to pull off what he did
against Irish rebels, and as you read above in a quotation from the Case, the Judiciary
has declared that it is a Sovereign prerogative of the King to debase his own currency,
whenever and however the King feels like it. [And rather than snicker at Judges today for
tossing aside your challenges to paper money, the correct remedy lies in writing explicit
and blunt restraining language into the King's Charter (the Constitution), but our Framers
in 1787 never did that; and the Framers of 1787 did not write in such explicit and blunt
restrainments for a very good reason; Because there was strong reservations expressed on
the floor of the Convention on whether such proposed restrainments were really provident.[34]

That Mixed Money Case was a sleeper, as our Framers never correctly designed the
Constitution to repel this special type of quiet sub rosa political aggression; and
250 years later, that Mixed Money Case surfaced in the Supreme Court of the United States,
in the context of justifying the Civil War era Legal Tender Acts.[35] Down to the present day, the excitement of war is used as a justification
to either initiate or continue one more turn in Gremlin enscrewment objectives.[36]

So now we should have some minimum discernment to see why contemporary
representations to the effect that gold is just too unsuitable by its heavy bulk weight to
be a modern circulating denomination of currency, as both fraudulent and factually
defective. Paper money is characterized by its depreciating nature.[37] Fraudulent because people with sinister intentions use debased currency
(and non-redeemable Federal Reserve Notes that quietly lose a little decremental value
with each passing year are debased currency) for political conquest and to damage their
adversaries.[38]

And such representations are factually defective because the King's new proposed
money (which the Treasury Department has already quietly circulated prototypes of) has
thin strips of metal imbedded in between layers of paper, and those strips of metal could
just as easily have been alloyed with gold and silver if our King wanted it -- but no, our
King is not quite through with his magnum Tortfeasance, not just yet.[39]

And just as Patriots go right ahead and argue defective reasoning based on the
milktoast language in Article I, Section 10, so too do Patriots go right ahead and try to
argue the line, that well, since the United States has no express grant of jurisdiction to
create corporations, therefore, the Federal Reserve Board is unConstitutional for this
reason. I have concluded that if I were on the Supreme Court, I would uphold the inherent
jurisdiction of the King to organize corporations (or any other instrumentality that had
its own separate treasury, with the King calling that instrument whatever he feels like).[40]

That idea of a separate treasury is important to the Supreme Court, since that is
the determining logic behind their rulings making municipalities exempt from the 11th
Amendment, which otherwise operates to immunize actions against states.[41] My reasoning comes from a confluence of factors. First, getting a feel
for the lack of specificity in the Framer's drafting of the Constitution; for example, no
where is the King given permission to hire employees, to excavate sites for office
buildings, to sign leases, or to purchase assets or land in foreign lands, etc. In
examining those areas where the Supreme Court has ruled on inherent meanings of Clauses,
they have ruled, for example, that the "Adversary Nature" of criminal
prosecutions is inherent in the Sixth Amendment [Miranda vs. Arizona and the
counsel cases], and that Courts created by the United States have inherent Contempt
jurisdiction, regardless of the absence of the conferment of any such jurisdiction.[42]

And on and on. For these reasons there is very much a basis for an implied grant of
jurisdiction for the King to do something, not otherwise specifically denominated in his
Charter. The test to be applied to see if some jurisdiction claimed operative by the King,
but not exactly specified anywhere in that Constitutional Charter of his which breathed
life into the King his breath of juristic life, lies in another strata: First, is the
challenged lex even inferentially in conflict with any restraining mandate the
Framers wrote into the Constitution? In the limited question of creating corporations, the
answer is no, it isn't. Next, we shift into the broader question and ask: Is the creation
of corporations even out of harmony with the leit motif of the Constitution to
restrain the King from functioning as a Tortfeasor?[43]

Does the challenged act of Congress (creating corporations or other political
instruments with separate treasuries), have the effect, in the practical setting, of
allowing or in any way assisting the King to function as a Tortfeasor against us
countryside folks? In other words, does the creation of privately held corporations by the
King, such as the Federal Reserve System, provide the King with a mechanism to damage us
that he would not otherwise be privileged to do, or able to do in the practical effect
with his own direct employees? In the case of creating corporations, or in the creation of
separate juristic organizations with their own treasuries, the administrative form of the
corporation (the wording on the piece of paper that is its charter) offers no possibility
of a Tort on us that could not be otherwise worked by Executive Agencies operating under
direct Presidential administrative jurisdiction. This is true even in the case of the
Federal Reserve System. The Fed is very much a Tortfeasor in its control over the rate of
inflation,[44] and in its proclivities to do so; and
from its being such a dominate financial market maker and control of re-discount rates its
Open Market Committee can and will fix rates of interest at whatever level it feels like;
and the Gremlins running the Fed know very much that they posses considerable power to
determine prosperity levels.[45]

By controlling these financial market forces, the Fed single-handedly controls the
relative level of economic prosperity or decline in the land.[46] If the Fed were an administrative agency under, perhaps, the Comptroller
of the Currency, then all of the regulatory assertions it now makes over member banks
would remain in effect, and it would still control prosperity through its regulatory
mechanisms. (Incidentally, the mere absence of prosperity, under such highly managed and
tightly controlled monetary circumstances, is a Tort against us by the Fed).[47]

If the Federal Reserve were an Article II Executive Agency under Presidential
Jurisdiction (which as a privately owned and independently managed business entity, it is
not), then every single decision made by the Federal Reserve Board and its Open Market
Committee (and its predecessor) down to the present time, would still have been made and
carried out.[48] The only existential reason for the
Fed's corporate organizational legal structure lies in the fact that the Fed was
sponsored, as you know, by a Special Interest Group for their own private enrichment:[49] A network of Gremlins operating under the
intellectual aegis of Rothschild nominee Paul Warburg and associates, who prodded and
tricked an otherwise reticent and naive Congress into enacting the initiating legislation
in 1913.[50]

Designed by Gremlins the way it was,[51] and
because of its private corporate ownership and lack of public accountability to the
Congress and to the public.[52] The Fed has never been
audited by the GAO,[53] the Fed as a privately owned
corporation is able to provide its European owners with an exceptionally lush American
gold mine they would not otherwise experience if title to Federal Reserve stock were ever
to be reclaimed by the Congress under Eminent Domain Jurisdiction, or simple
repeal, or repurchased under a reservation in its charter.[54]

So the Fed exists as a private independent corporation because it was created to
act as a financial enrichment velocity accelerant for its owners [I have a hunch that it
is also the single most profitable wealth institution in the world, outdancing and
outdazzling the top Fortune 100, as well as the Vatican and several "for profit"
political jurisdictions]. The Status of the Federal Reserve System as a Tortfeasor is not
related to its legal charter organization as a corporation, and neither would its
Tortfeasance be changed, either negative or positive at all, if it ever were to be
absorbed into the Executive Presidential bureaucracy of Article II. As an Executive
Article II agency, then it would still control inflation since it would still be
controlled by Gremlins; and it would continue to control interest rates and relative
levels of prosperity through its regulatory mechanisms.[55]

That this Tortfeasance is transparent to its organized form is true because all
Torts originate with people, and at the Fed, there is now a man as chairman who is
uniquely qualified to operate as a joint Tortfeasor with the Rothschilds and work magnum
opus Torts on us all: Gremlin Paul Volcker.[56]

This is the same Treasury Department staff member Paul Volcker who played a
supporting role in the theft of American gold bullion deposits from Fort Knox in the
1960's,[57] and the same Paul Volcker who now holds a
controlling executive position in the Fed, a position that when he campaigned for it in
1978, he openly called for the "controlled disintegration" of the United
States.[58]

Since the corporate structure of the King's peripheral Commercial interests, of and
by themselves, do not provide the King with a mechanism to work Torts on us he would be
otherwise restrained from doing through executive agencies, I have no objection to the
King creating corporations, and I would suggest that arguments to the contrary will likely
be rebuffed by the Supreme Court.[59] If at all you
question the legal authenticity of my conclusory statements, then please read M'Culloch
vs. Maryland,[60] and tell me that the Congress
cannot create corporations or nationally chartered banks. In that case, the Supreme Court
specifically talks, at length, about the Constitutionality of creating corporations, and
the implied powers of Congress to do so.[61]

Also foolish is the line that I hear that no tax could possibly be due to the King,
because the IRS is not an Article II Executive Agency and functions as a private
contracting corporation.[62] I see no general
impediment to the King hiring private contractors to assist him in tax collections.[63] Private contract bounty hunters have been used to
find criminal fugitives for centuries, so why aren't you Protestors objecting to that?
Incidentally, in the old days of our Mother England in the 1700's, there was a practice
going around Europe called Privateering, which is when small privately owned armed
navies would roam the High Seas in search of prizes to steal for themselves. A Privateer,
then, is an armed vessel, owned, fitted out, and manned by private parties with a legal
commission from a political jurisdiction authorizing it to capture the vessels and cargo's
of the enemy. This legal commission, called a Letter of Marque, impressed upon the Privateer's
banditry an aura of legitimacy in International Law, without which Privateers would be
hung as pirates by any nation's ships fast enough to capture one. But back safely at home,
the Letter of Marque also served as a legal basis for an Admiralty Court to condemn
the captured property, the Prize, and assign it over to the Privateers themselves who
stole it (this was also called Prize Jurisdiction).[64]

[In remarkably similar ways today in the United States, private contracting
Privateers are at work in the IRS, acting under a legal commission, which largely
precludes the imposition of Civil Rights damages because of their operating under the
recourse protective umbrella (color) of Governmental authority; and like the Privateers of
old, today's tax loot is also handed over to a private party: To the owners of the Federal
Reserve System, for payment on the King's National Debt. And even more astounding in
parallel, today's IRS collection of loot and banditry is also governed under a Federal
Court acting under the rules of Admiralty Jurisdiction, as I will explain later on.]

That analogy between the Privateers of old out on the High Seas, and of
today's private contracting termites inside the IRS sounds pretty good, doesn't it? The
requisite blend of comparative background elements of thievery are present, an underlying
tone of IRS illegitimacy runs throughout the analogy, and that, generally is the kind of
talk Tax Protestors like to hear... "looters," "theft,"
"banditry" and the like. Yes, analogies like that are music to the ears of Tax
Protestors Extraordinaire like Irwin Schiff,[65]
and Representative George Hansen.[66]

But just one tiny little problem surfaces here which makes the Privateers to IRS
Termites analogy fall apart and collapse, a tiny little problem Irwin Schiff and
George Hansen do not want to talk about -- a tiny little problem most folks had better
start to talk about, now, before getting in front of Father at the Last Day: An
invisible Contract. Today, the Protestor has entered into a series of invisible contracts
with the King, numerous contracts which are invisible to the Protestors, as I will explain
later on, so now all of those termites in the IRS are merely collecting monies rightfully
due the King by contract, whereas in contrast the Privateers of old had no such
contract in effect to grab the property belonging to others. Therefore, if I was a Federal
Magistrate, I don't know if I would be as patient as some of the State and Federal
Magistrates I have seen in hearings and trials in trying to explain error to a
Constitutionalist, so called, but whose words were falling on death ears. One prime
example of how the carefully chosen words of a Federal Judge falls on death ears, occurs
when a petitioner is being rebuffed when throwing a challenge to the Constitutionality of
either the Federal Reserve System or Federal Reserve Notes at the Judge. One of the
reasons why Federal Magistrates and the United States Supreme Court are so reluctant to
declare the Fed or its Notes as being unConstitutional [aside from the fact that many
Federal Judges find the idea to be philosophically uncomfortable and ideologically
irritating] is because, as a matter of Law, the use and recirculation of Federal Reserve
Notes falls under the governing doctrine applicable to Commercial Contract Law
Jurisprudence, so the Constitution is largely irrelevant right from the beginning, as the
entire closed private domain of King's Commerce is a benefit/privilege created by the
Congress, and there is nothing in the Constitution to restrain it.[67]

Assuming for a moment, arguendo, that the interposition of Contract Law was
irrelevant, then aside from that there are a large number of separate and distinct sources
of jurisdiction the King can claim as authority to issue out debased paper currency. But
before listing those sources, we need to back up a step. An examination of the Federal
Reserve's Charter also reveals that, in Warburg's devilishly brilliant cleverness, the
Congress never recited any specific sources of Constitutional Jurisdiction when it created
the Fed. Nowhere in its Charter does it say something like "... the powers of Article
I, Section 10 are hereby invoked..." An examination of numerous other statutory
programs reveals that the Congress rarely ever bothers to recite its claimed sources of
Constitutional Jurisdiction for those programs either (in those Acts that I have searched
through). Since the Congress did not recite any Constitutional sources of authority when
it allegedly passed the Federal Reserve Act,[68] this
now means that whenever a Protestor comes forward today and throws a Case at a Federal
Judge where the Constitutionality of the Federal Reserve is being challenged, the United
States Attorney General is thereby free to throw any set of defensive arguments back at
the Protestor that the Attorney General feels like, in order to justify the
Constitutionality of the challenged Act of Congress. The bottom line is that the Attorney
General can and will claim sources of Constitutional Jurisdiction at some future date that
the Congress never really contemplated when it originally created the program (if a quorum
ever really did exist to create the Fed). However unfair this appears to be, would someone
please show me where the Constitution requires the Congress to recite its enabling
Jurisdiction on each Act it passes? The Framers were also negligent in this respect, and
so there is no such recital requirement, and so now the Attorney General is free to come
up with a long list of claimed sources of Constitutional Jurisdiction that the Protestor
never ever dreamed of; a list that the Congress never really considered at the time of
possible enactment; a list that Federal Judges are well acquainted with; a list that I
will be showing you later on.

But first, we need to cover some background material so the concepts I am about to
explain can be understood easily. Remember that correct Principles of Nature operate
across all factual settings; if the Principle is correct, what works in one factual
setting will work for similar reasons in another setting. So with that in mind, if we had
a power boat built for us, and that boat had say, 12 gas tanks built into it (perhaps
distributed throughout the hull as ballast to achieve some desired weight and loading
balancing effects), or if we were piloting an L-1011 jet aircraft with the numerous
bladder, wing, and fuselage fuel tanks that it has located throughout its body, then in
order for the boat or jet to be stopped dead cold, all fuel tanks individually need to be
empty, first. If so much as one fuel tank has any fuel in it at all, then the boat or jet
will continue forward at maximum cruising velocity, without any letup, until all tanks are
completely empty. Only the complete exhaustion of all fuel from all of the separate fuel
tanks, without any exceptions, will return the jet or boat into that quiescent state of
rest that it once came from. The fact that one or several of the fuel tanks may be vacant
of fuel will offer no propulsion impairment or reduction in velocity -- none whatsoever.

As we turn from a high-powered machine or aviation setting where a manufactured
product is under propulsion from multiple and independent sources of fuel, as we turn from
that setting to a setting where a legal product was also manufactured by men, like the
Federal Reserve Board (Incorporated), we found out that its propulsion also originates
from multiple sources of jurisdictional fuel. And so in order to return the Federal
Reserve Board to its quiescent status quo ante state of non-existence, of
pre-December, 1913, then a large number of separate and distinct sources of Constitutional
fuel need to be individually voided. If so much as one single source of Constitutional
fuel is left remaining --j ust so much as one single Clause -- by having survived the
blows of a Protestor in adversary judicial proceedings, then the Federal Reserve Board
will carry on at maximum cruising velocity with the same identical full force and effect
as if the Protestor had never thrown anything at the Fed. Mindful of this background
information, now we can discuss the multiple sources of jurisdictional fuel that the King
has got up his sleeve to retortionally throw back at pesky little Protestors.

While examining the main Legal Tender and National bank related cases in the
Supreme Court,[69] we see that the right of the
Congress to create a bank and have that bank issue out national currency, as well the
right of Congress to designate anything it wants as Legal Tender, is a power directly
related to the right of the Congress, by both express and incidental powers:

1. To declare war;[70]
2. To suppress insurrection;
3. To raise and support armies;[71]
4. To provide and maintain a navy (notice the words "maintain" and
"support," as they mean financially through taxes and money);
5. To regulate Interstate Commerce;[72]
6. To facilitate the laying and collecting of taxes;[73]
7. Existing as an attribute of Sovereignty;[74]
8. To coin and circulate money pursuant to Article I, Section 8;
9. To pay debts and facilitate the borrowing of money on the credit of the United States
(Article I, Section 8);[75]
10. To provide for the common defense and general welfare.

all of which were involved, to a lessor and greater extent, at the time the Legal
Tender Acts were enacted by the Congress in the Civil War era of the 1800's.[76] And the correlation in effect between the right to
enact Legal Tender Statutes and the various War Powers of the Congress applies both in
times of war,[77] and also in times of peace.[78]

So what is important for Tax Protestors to understand is that when they attack
either the Federal Reserve in whole or part, or the designation of its Circulating
Evidences of Debt at Legal Tender --and the Protestor goes through all of the Supreme
Court rulings on the Money Coin Clause in Article I, Section 8,[79] and all the Constitutional Convention debates on the Money Coin Clause,
and the material discussed in secret Convention meetings back in 1787, and all of the
Legislation enacted pursuant thereto, and all of the quotations from the Founding Fathers,
such as in Max Farrand's works[80] or "The
Federalist," and numerous other private correspondence, and all the lower court
opinions on Choses in Action and coins and debasement theories, and of their
citations on the monetary disabilities of the United States; after the Tax Protestor goes
through all that work and effort, he has only told the Supreme Court about 10% of what the
Supreme Court needs to hear in order to invalidate the Status of Federal Reserve Notes as
Legal Tender instruments: Because the right to create banks and let that bank circulate
Legal Tender is also related to War Powers and the Suppression of Domestic
Insurrections, to Raising Taxes,[81] the Interstate
Commerce Clause, the Article I, Section 8 Money Coin Clause, and the Raising
and Financing Armies and Navies Clauses, and of course Sovereignty itself --and
they are independent stand-alone sources of jurisdiction that have to be attacked
individually, just like a jet or boat with several fuel tanks needs to have each separate
tank vacated before the vehicle will come to a stationary state.[82]

Will someone please tell me how to challenge the Fed based on the Interstate
Commerce Clause?[83] What grant of intervening and
manipulative power is more broad than the Interstate Commerce Clause? With that Clause,
anything goes. How are you going to attack Federal Reserve Notes as being a defective use
of the Raising and Financing or Armies and Navies Clauses?[84]

The answer is that you are not going to. There are some sharp attorneys like Edwin
Vieira (Mr. Solyom's attorney),[85] and on the other
hand there are some intelligentsia clowns; and any judicial rebuffment experienced
by attorneys throwing Protestor caliber arguments at Federal Judges is a fully earned
account, as any flaky arguments centered singularly around just the Gold and Silver
Coin Clause of Article I, Section 10 are just plain stupid: You are misleading your
readers, delivering naught to your clients for your fees, and as attorneys you should know
better.[86]

Other rulings also affirm the broad application of monetary powers. Later on in Veazie
Bank vs. Fenno,[87] the Chief Justice, speaking
for the Supreme Court, ruled that it is the Constitutional right of the Congress to
provide a currency for the whole country; and that this might be done with coin, or by
United States Notes, or by notes of banks chartered by the Congress. Other cases replicate
the same line. For example:

"In Veazie Bank vs. Fenno [75
U.S. 533 (1869)], decided at the present term, this court held, after full
consideration, that it was the privilege of Congress to furnish this country with the
currency to be used by it in the transaction of business, whether this was done by means
of coin, of notes of the United States, or of banks created by Congress."[88]

So asking a Federal Judge to declare the Federal Reserve System or its Notes as
being unConstitutional based on the Monetary Clause of Article I, Section 8 is
facially only a small slice of the larger total argument pie that Judges need to hear.[89] One of the reasons lies in the right of Congress to
regulate Interstate Commerce through its Commerce Clause (and arguing deficiencies
in that jurisdiction is foolishness). So any Constitutional infirmity or tension in effect
between the Federal Reserve System and Article I, Section 8 offers no reason whatever for
dissolving the Fed; as the Commerce Clause neatly picks up all the loose ends where
the restrictive coinage jurisdiction conferred by Article I, Section 8 might possibly be
imperfect, and renders Judicial dissolution of the Fed inappropriate.[90]

Yes, Virginia, Paul Warburg knew what he was doing. But even that is not the full
story.

Question: How are you Protestors going to attack Federal Reserve Notes on
the floor of the United States Supreme Court? How are you going to attack Sovereignty
itself? Are you going to try and attack the essence of Sovereignty itself by quoting from
the devil himself? If you can't find a quotation from Lucifer slicing down Sovereignty,
then maybe a quotation from one of his hard working Gremlin assistants might be a point of
beginning.[91]

Well, an attack on Sovereignty like that, although a majestic goal for Gremlins as
they tear down our existing Constitution and the Juristic Institution it created, and try
and replace it with their own, is not much. So now just how does an inherent prerogative
of the Sovereign, of this right to issue out money any way he feels like it, violate the
King's Charter?

Answer: There is no violation -- there is no express Clause restraining
the Congress to circulate only that currency that physically contains gold and silver --
and you are not going to get the chance before the Supreme Court to attack it.[92]

Our Founding Fathers did not tie the King's giblets down tight enough with that
level of explicit and blunt language that all Kings need to be restrained by.[93] And so any attack on Federal Reserve Notes will
require such an explicit and bluntly worded Constitutional Amendment, and that is a
political operation for the Legislatures to handle, not something lending itself well in
nature to a Judicial remedy. At best the Judiciary can rule on cases with the outcome
carefully designed to give the Congress an incentive to get going. An honest assessment of
the total factual setting of monetary history in the United States will emphasize general
naivete among the members of the American legislatures in 1787: They didn't know what they
were doing, collectively speaking, although there were a few who did raise their voices in
opposition to paper money, like Roger Sherman.[94]

Remember that the Britannic Crown was still quite popular then, and the American
Revolution was a minority rights operation, with many bleeding heart native Americans
opposing severance from the Crown. And there were also just too few George Masons to go
around. The experientially wise know that you never, ever deal with a King with negative
restraining clauses in contracts except under the most explicit and blunt words that the
English Language offers, because the King will always figure out ways to claim some
implicit permission to work his way around a restraining clause that is sounding in
milktoast; but our Fathers didn't do that. And compounding the problem drafting such
specific language, sprinkled in between the floor debates and political comprises, were a
few traitors of strong influence (like Alexander Hamilton, who married indirectly into the
House of Rothschild),[95] who knew exactly what they
were doing, for and on behalf of their sponsors.[96]

One might think that with the passage of time, an increase in political savoir
faire might just develop nationally. But no. If a Constitutional Convention were held
over again today, as is quite close to happening, I am afraid of the consequences. We need
a Constitutional Convention today in the 1980's like we need the Ortega Brothers in the
United States Senate representing the State of New Hampshire. Conservatives believing a
new Constitutional Convention, called for the purpose of a Balanced Budget Amendment,
are playing into the hands of Gremlins, who fully intend to use that Constitutional
Convention to replace our Father's Constitution with their own; in fact that is how the
Constitution of 1787 was proposed to the States, as a replacement for the Articles of
Confederation. And if you don't think Gremlins are smart enough to use parliamentary
devices to work their way around wording in some State Resolutions calling for such a
Convention (attempting to limit the subject matter discussed in the Convention to just the
content of the Balanced budget amendment), then you have no knowledge whatsoever of
Gremlins, and you are not even qualified to exercise such political judgment today when in
fact Gremlins now hold the upper hand in the United States.[97] And Gremlins are not about to let a Constitutional Convention come and go
in the United States without putting up a good fight.[98]

If you want to get a good preview and feel for the class of new Constitution that
such a convention would produce, just examine the caliber of Presidents elected in recent
history.[99]

The factual setting giving rise to Davis was a Bankruptcy proceeding. In the
many quotations from the United States Supreme Court and other judicial forums in this
Letter, sentences were rearranged and then quoted out of original order for enhanced
logical continuity; and in other places I made nominal punctuation and capitalization
changes. Therefore, please refer to the original citations before requoting. [return]

[3] The corporation is the legal owner of all of the property
of the bank, real and personal; and within the powers conferred upon it by the charter,
and for the purposes for which it was created, can deal with the corporate property as
absolutely as a private individual can deal with his own. This is familiar law, and will
be found in every work that may be opened in the subject of corporations. A striking
exemplification may be seen in the case of The Queen vs. Armound, 9 Ad. & Ell.
N.S. 806. The question related to the registry of a ship owned by a corporation. Lord
Denman observed:

"It appears to me that the British corporation is, as such, the sole owner of
the ship. The individual members to the corporation are no doubt interested in one sense
in the property of the corporation, as they may derive individual benefits from its
increase, or loss from its decrease; but in no legal sense are the individual members the
owners." - The Bank Tax Cases, 70 U.S. 573, at 584 (1865). [return]

[4] "The interest of the shareholder entitles him to
participate in the net profits earned by the bank in the employment of its capital, during
the existence of its charter, in proportion to the number of his shares; and, upon its
dissolution or termination, to his proportion of the property that may remain of the
corporation after the payment of its debts." - The Bank Tax Cases, id., at
584. [return]

[5] Not that Father is throwing us all into a lake of fire
and brimstone to scorch us thoroughly (Heathens really get a good kick out of that
foolish idea of being roasted in a scorcher by a revengeful god for a few little impish
smatterings); but the Last Day Judgement will actually be the worse imaginable
because of knowledge we will then possess of the magnitude of the lost benefits involved,
and how stupid it was to lose it down here over some interesting feminine musculature, and
other inappropriate adventurism into peripheral areas that are defined as being illicit by
First Estate Covenants, but are not really illicit practically due to the omission of
damages. The Lake of Fire and Brimstone analogy that the Prophets of old were
referring to is their characterization of this state of mental anguish. [return]

[6] The New and Everlasting Covenant has been of
particular interest with all of our Patriarchs and Prophets of old, right back down the
line, clear back to Adam:

Question: What is this New and Everlasting Covenant?

Answer: Without referring to anyone's commentary or explanation, the name of this
particular Celestial Covenant reveals a slice of history by itself, as the words new
and everlasting possibly imply that other Covenants exist that might be just the
opposite: old and temporary. Are there in fact such Covenants floating around? Yes,
there are, but they are invisible; Father extracted them out of us in the First Estate
before we came down here, and by their nature those temporary First Estate Covenants were
designed to be replaced with New and Everlasting Covenants, Covenants that would
never again be replaced, Covenants that are everlasting. The anonymous author who
once wrote a Letter now known as Hebrews in the New Testament, once had a few words
to say about old Covenants and new Covenants, average Covenants and better
Covenants, First Covenants and Second Covenants:

"... now he hath obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is
the mediator of a better Covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that
First covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the Second
[Covenant]. For finding fault with them, he saith, `Behold, the days come,' saith the
Lord, `when I will make a new Covenant with the House of Israel, and with the
House of Judah.' ... In that he saith, `A New Covenant,' he hath made the first
old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to varnish away." -Hebrews
8:6, et seq.

The next chapter in Hebrews talks about the Holy of Holies, Temples,
the Ark of the Covenant, and First and Second Covenants, which is advanced material
I will talk about in another Letter. I do not know who wrote this Letter to the Hebrews;
within its content the text contains little information about either its author, its
original readers and their circumstances, its date, its overt purpose, or its theological
background. Hebrews commences immediately by laying on the heavy stuff, while the
greetings appear at the end. Even its literary form is somewhat mysterious in the sense
that by probing into dimensionally deep Christian doctrines, the left the other
Commentators behind him biting the dust; words and phrases appearing in Hebrews
appear nowhere else [for example, the phrase Jesus, the Mediator of the New Covenant
-- (see 12:24, 9:15, and 8:6) -- does not appear anywhere else in either the Old or New
Testaments]. Martin Luther once made the suggestion that Apollos of Alexandria was the
writer [Apollos is described in Acts 18:24-28 as being a caliber of a fellow
who would and could write Hebrews]. Suffice it to say that the doctrinal ideas and
ecclesiastical commentary presented in Hebrews will feel very comfortable to folks
today after they have first been steeped in the Doctrines of the New Covenant for a
while, as both originated from the same Source (the significance of Hebrews will be
appreciated once you have an enlarged basis of factual knowledge on the successive organic
nature of Covenants serving their purpose and then replacing previous Covenants, and in
turn being replaced by still other Covenants). While calling itself a Word of
Exhortation [13:22], the Letter to the Hebrews contains some of the most
eloquent writings and sermons in the New Testament, and whoever its author was, had to be
a gifted Christian thinker who probed into the deeper doctrines of Christianity where few
others did. I will have more to say about Hebrews in some other Letter.

-- I said that this New and Everlasting Covenant has been a source of
interest to all of the great Patriarchs back down the line -- and I meant what I said --
so here are the citations:

"... and I will look upon it, that I may remember the Everlasting Covenant
between God and every living creature..." - Genesis 6:18

"... I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy Seed [seed
meaning offspring] after thee in their generation for an Everlasting Covenant, to
be a God upon thee, and to thy Seed after thee." - Genesis 17:7

"And God said `Sarah, thy wife, shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt
call his name Isaac: And I will establish my Covenant with him for an Everlasting
Covenant, and with his Seed after him." - Genesis 17:19

"Every Sabbath he shall set it in order before the Lord continually, being
taken from the children of Israel by an Everlasting Covenant." - Leviticus
24:8

"And he shall have it, and his Seed after him, even the Covenant of an Everlasting
Priesthood..." - Numbers 25:13

"Although my house be not so with God, yet he hath made with me an Everlasting
Covenant, ordered in all things, and sure: For this is all my Salvation, and all my
desire..." - II Samuel 23:5

"He is the Lord our God; His Judgements are in all the Earth; be mindful always
of His Covenant; the word which He commanded to a thousand generations; even of the
Covenant He made with Abraham, and of his Oath unto Isaac; and hath confirmed the same to
Jacob for a Law, and to Israel for an Everlasting Covenant..." - I
Chronicles 16:14 et seq.

"He is the Lord our God; His Judgments are in all the Earth; He hath remembered
His Covenant for ever; the word which He commanded to a thousand generations; which
Covenant He made with Abraham, and his Oath unto Isaac; and confirmed the same to Jacob
for a Law, and to Israel for an Everlasting Covenant..." - Psalm 105:7
et seq.

"... the Earth is also defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have
transgressed the Laws, changed the Ordinance, broken the Everlasting Covenant."
- Isaiah 55:3

"... everlasting joy shall be unto them.. and I will direct their work in
Truth, and I will make an Everlasting Covenant with them." - Isaiah
61:8 et seq.

"... and I will make an Everlasting Covenant with them..." - Jeremiah
32:40

"... nevertheless, I will remember my Covenant with thee in the days of thy
youth, and I will establish unto thee an Everlasting Covenant." - Ezekiel
16:60

"Moreover, I will make a Covenant of peace with them; it shall be an Everlasting
Covenant with them; and I will place them, and multiply them..." - Ezekiel
37:26

"... now the God of peace... that great shepard of the sheep, through the blood
of the Everlasting Covenant." - Hebrews 13:20

"For they have strayed from mine ordinances, and have broken mine Everlasting
Covenant..." - Doctrine and Covenants 1:15

"Wherefore, I, the Lord... gave commandments to others, that they should
proclaim these things unto the world... that mine Everlasting Covenant might be
established." - Doctrine and Covenants 1:17 et seq.

"Behold, I say unto you that all old Covenants have I caused to be done away
with in this things; and this is a New and Everlasting Covenant, even that which
was from the beginning." - Doctrine & Covenants 22:1

"Wherefore I say unto you that I have sent unto you mine Everlasting
Covenant, even that which was from the beginning." - Everlasting Covenant
49:9

"Verily I say unto you, blessed are you for receiving mine Everlasting
Covenant... sent forth unto the children of men, that they might have life and be made
partakers of the glories which are to be revealed in the last days, as it was written by
the Prophets and Apostles in days of old." - Doctrine & Covenants 66:2

"... in the telestial world... [there will be goofs;]... these are they who say
they are some of one and some of another -- some of Christ and some of John, and some of
Moses, and some of Elias, and some of Esaisis, and some of Isaiah, and some of Enoch [by
being of Moses, of John, of Jack, of Pete, of Harry, of Bob, of Ted -- they are
spiritually disorganized in that they are of anyone except the right One]; but
received not the Gospel, neither the testimony of Jesus, neither the Prophets ["...
it's all the same God --I just don't need me none of that Contract stuff"], neither
the Everlasting Covenant." - Doctrine & Covenants 76:98 et seq.

"Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, to prepare and organize yourselves
by a bond or Everlasting Covenant that cannot be broken." - Doctrine &
Covenants 78:11

"He that is appointed to be president, or teacher,... let him offer himself in
prayer upon his knees before God, in token or remembrance of the Everlasting Covenant."
- Doctrine & Covenants 88:128 et seq.

"I salute you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, in token or remembrance of
the Everlasting Covenant, in which Covenant I receive you to fellowship, in a
determination that is fixed, immovable, and unchangeable, to be your friend and brother
through the grace of God in the bonds of love, to wait in all the commandments of God
blameless, in thanksgiving, forever and ever." - Doctrine & Covenants
88:133

"When men are called unto mine Everlasting Gospel, and Covenant with an Everlasting
Covenant, they are accounted as the salt of the Earth and the savor of men..." -
Doctrine & Covenants 101:39

"For behold, I reveal unto you a New and Everlasting Covenant, it was
instituted for the fullness of my Glory, and he that receiveth a fullness thereof must and
shall abide the Law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God. [Yes, those are pretty
strong consequences; but where there are high powered benefits, there will always be found
correlative high powered consequences]." - Doctrine & Covenants 132:6

"... verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my Law,
and by the New and Everlasting Covenant... ye shall inherit thrones, kingdoms,
principalities, and powers dominions, all heights and depths... they shall pass by the
angels, and the gods, which are set there, to the exaltation and Glory in all things...
and the angels are subject unto them." - Doctrine & Covenants 132:19 [return]

[7] "The object of our earthly existence is that we may
have a fullness of joy, and that we may become the sons and daughters of God, in the
fullest sense of the word, being heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ, to be
kings and priests unto God, to inherit glory, dominion, exaltation, thrones, and every
power and attribute developed and possessed by our Heavenly Father. This is the object of
our being on this Earth. In order to obtain unto this exalted position, it is necessary
that we go through this mortal experience, or probation, by which we may prove ourselves
worthy, through the aid of our elder brother Jesus." - Joseph F. Smith, in a Funeral
Service delivered over the daughter of Daniel H. Wells, on April 11, 1878; 19 Journal
of Discourses 258, at 259 [London (1878)]. [return]

[8] "A charter is certainly in form and substance a
contract; it is a grant of powers, rights, and privileges; ... A charter to a bank... is
certainly a contract, founded on valuable consideration." - Joseph Story, in III Commentaries
on the Constitution, at page 258 (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1833).

This Joseph Story, who I will be quoting from throughout this Letter, was born in
Marblehead, Massachusetts in September of 1779. He entered Harvard College and graduated
in 1798. When leaving Cambridge, he immediately entered into the study of Law in the
office of Mr. Samuel Sewall, then an advocate at the Essex bar. In 1801, Joseph Story was
admitted to the Massachusetts bar. He was elected to the Massachusetts Commonwealth
Legislature in 1805, and was then elected to the Congress in 1808, and was soon Speaker of
the House of Representatives. In 1810 he argued the great Georgia case Fletcher vs.
Peck, which involved contracts, before the Supreme Court. He edited a book called Chitty
on Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes, and others. On November 18, 1811, Joseph
Story was commissioned to be an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court to
fill the vacancy left by Mr. Justice Cushing. He was then 32 years of age, the youngest
man ever to be called to such a position in either England or America, except for Justice
Buller. While on the Supreme Court, Joseph Story wrestled down questions on Admiralty and
Maritime regarding the rights and duties of ship owners, insurance companies, and
mariners. He was a major architect of, and wrote extensively about, Patents and their role
in English history [see the Influence of Mr. Justice Story on American Patent Law
by Frank Prager in 5 American Journal of Legal History, at 254 (January, 1961)]. He
created a doctrine to settle frictional disputes between the Federal-State layers of
Government, called the Comity Doctrine, which is still quoted by the Supreme Court
down to the present day [see Joseph Story's Contribution to American Conflicts Law: a
Comment by Kurt Naddleman in 5 American Journal of Legal History, at 230 (January,
1961)]. And he also dealt with the banditry of Prize Jurisdiction, which was still
in vogue. Back at a time when banking in the United States was operating under a laissez-faire
relational status to Government, Joseph Story wrote that banking affects a public interest
[very significant words], and that banking involves that most ancient prerogative of
national Sovereignty, the Money Power, which our Framers never restrained or abated
in the Charter they created for our King. [See Justice Story and the American Law of
Banking by Gerald Dunne, in 5 American Journal of Legal History, at 205 (January,
1961)]; and this is a dominant theme in American Jurisprudence remaining in effect down to
the present day with George Mercier enlarging on what Joseph Story started. While studying
his Commentaries on the Constitution, I have been able to uncover only a few of
Justice Story's opinions and legal statements that were later reversed or otherwise toned
down in subsequent Federal rulings, and none of the reversals were really on-point factual
settings. Down to the present day in 1985, many of Joseph Story's statements of Law that
he applied to the hypothetical factual scenarios which he created in 1833 for His
Commentaries were actually made with great foresight, as they would later be coming to
pass long after he returned Home in 1845. [For detailed biographies on all of the early
Supreme Court Justices, See the Supreme Court of the United States by Hampton
Carson [John Huber Company, Philadelphia (1891)]; and also worthwhile is Morgan David's Justice
Joseph Story: a Study of the Legal Philosophy of a Jeffersonian Judge in 18
Vanderbuilt Law Review, at 643 (March, 1965). [return]

[9] Exemplary perhaps would be two Exclusionary Rule
based cases from the Supreme Court: - United States vs. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976). A criminally
accused person made a pre-Trial Motion to Suppress of copies of checks and other bank
records which federal agents had gotten a hold of. HELD: That the Motion to
Suppress was properly denied since the accused person possessed no Fourth Amendment
interest that could be vindicated by a challenge to the bank accounts; and any infirmities
or deficiencies in the bank account record acquisition process, by way of a defective
Subpoena or Search Warrant, were irrelevant arguments since Subpoenas and Search Warrants
were unnecessary document acquisition tools to begin with; those bank account records are
the property of the Government, and they are available to the Government under
administrative devices (meaning an investigator's phone call or letter inquiry); and - United
States vs. Payner, 447 U.S. 727
(1979). A criminal defendant had been charged with falsifying his income tax return by
denying that he held a foreign bank account. Federal agents in Florida had broken into an
apartment and then surreptitiously copied bank records that a bank manager from the
Bahamas had brought with him on a trip, under circumstances that you or I would be
incarcerated for. Later on, detective work back at the office uncovered the fact that the
poor defendant did indeed maintain foreign bank accounts, so the Government then threw a
criminal prosecution at the fellow caught in the act of defilement. Since the Government
had violated the Constitutional rights of a third party [the bank manager from the
Bahamas], and not the criminally accused, the Fourth Amendment offered no protection to
the Defendant, since the Defendant had no rights violated.

State in other words, perhaps more explicitly, emphasizing the consequences of
maintaining bank account records: When Government obtains your bank account records,
regardless of how, through whom, when, or under any circumstances, then arguing Fourth
Amendment rights defensively will likely not produce any sympathy from Federal Appellate
Forums. [return]

[11] "... no interest legitimately protected by the
Fourth Amendment is implicated by governmental investigative activities unless there is an
intrusion into a zone of privacy, into `the security a man relies upon when he places
himself or his property within a constitutionally protected area.'" - Hoffa vs.
United States, 385 U.S. 293,
at 301 (1966). [return]

[12] "Respondent [bank account holder] urges that he has
a Fourth Amendment interest in the records kept by banks because they are merely copies of
personal records that were made available to the banks for a limited purpose and in which
he has a reasonable expectation of privacy... Even if we direct our attention to the
original checks and deposit slips [that the bank account holder kept in his home], rather
than to the microfilm copies actually viewed and obtained by means of a subpoena, we
perceive no legitimate `expectation of privacy' in their contents. The checks are not
confidential communications but negotiable instruments to be used in commercial
transactions. The lack of any legitimate expectation of privacy concerning the
information kept in bank records was assumed by Congress in enacting the Bank Secrecy
Act, the express purpose of which is to require records to be maintained because they
`have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, and regulatory investigations and
proceedings' [12 U.S.C. 1829b(a)(1)]."
- United States vs. Miller, 425
U.S. 435, at 442 (1976)

The italics were added here to underscore the extreme significance of those
statements; the Law in this Fourth Amendment/bank account area is well settled: Commercial
contracts are in effect, and challenging it is improvident. Notice how the Congress is
playing cutesy by calling a sequential family of statutes the Bank Secrecy Act,
freely conveying the initially impressive image that these statutes protect or otherwise
enhance the public's secrecy in banking accounts and related records -- but in reality the
Bank Secrecy Act is a high-powered statutory device, as the Supreme Court here
exemplifies, to promote the usefulness of those bank records in criminal prosecutions that
the Government will one day be throwing at you. Among other things, this Act empowers the
Secretary of the Treasury to adopt broad regulations compelling banks to record their
customer's transactions and requiring that the banks, as well as private persons using
banking services, also report a broad range of financial transactions to the government
[now where is the "Secrecy"?] Pursuant to this grant of statutory jurisdiction,
the Treasury Secretary then turned around and created his own multiplying slice of lex
by administrative promulgations directing that each bank report each and every single
deposit, withdrawal, and transfer that took place in domestic transactions of $10,000 or
more [see 31 Code of Federal Regulations Section 103.22].
[return]

[13] Banking records seized from residences merely contain the
same information that other documents located in public places contain; and so although
those seized records are "private papers," all the Government has to do is go
down to the bank [now that they know which bank to go to, and which account to sift
through], obtain duplicate copies of banking records, and then throw those copies that
were obtained directly from banks at Defendants:

"On their face, the documents [bank accounts] subpoenaed here are not
respondent's `private papers.' Unlike claimant in Boyd vs. United States [116 U.S. 616 (1886)], respondent [bank
account holder] can assert neither ownership nor possession. Instead, these are the
business records of banks." - United States vs. Miller, 425 U.S. 435, at 440 (1976). [return]

[14] As I mentioned in the Armen Condo Letter, Federal Judges
have been asked not to let the "cat out of the bag" by discussion the special
and very quiet relationship between bank accounts and Income Tax statute liability
(although bank accounts are not exclusive Equity Jurisdiction attachment instruments, they
are air-tight instruments of Conclusive Evidence whenever the King has a burden of
proving the defendant's entrance into Interstate Commerce). [return]

[15] "The depositor takes the risk, in revealing his
affairs to another, that the information will be conveyed by that person to the
Government... This Court has held repeatedly that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit
the obtaining of information revealed to a third party and conveyed by [the third party]
to Government authorities, even if the information is revealed on the assumption that it
will be used only for a limited purpose and the confidence placed in the third party will
not be betrayed." - United States vs. Miller, 425 U.S. 435, at 443 (1976).

If you don't know what contract I am referring to that gives the King the right to
simply reclaim his own property, then ask a bank for a copy of their bank rules that all
depositors and borrowers have agreed to be bound by. Under normal circumstances, banks are
reluctant to give depositors copies of Bank Rules those depositors have agreed to be bound
by. Sounds irrational, doesn't it? Withholding the terms of contracts those depositors
have just taken upon themselves criminal compliance liability for? Yet, numerous attempts
by people associated with me have attempted to obtain a copy of these Bank Rules, and all
attempts resulted in the banking officer clamming up tight, deflecting attention over to
the "irregular and unusual" nature of the request, and then telling the
requesting person to go See Mr. so and so at the Federal Reserve Board, who in turn
also clammed up tight. So much for domestic American bank accounts. [return]

[19] Gremlins have had a few words to say about the utterly
heinous issuance of paper currency:

"Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring classes of mankind, none is
so effectual as that which deludes them with paper money. It is the most perfect expedient
ever invented for fertilizing the rich man's fields by the sweat of the poor man's brow.
Ordinary tyranny, oppression, excessive taxation, these bear lightly on the happiness of
the community compared with fraudulent currencies and the robberies committed by
depreciated paper. Our own history has recorded enough, and more than enough, of the
demoralizing tendency, the injustice and intolerable oppression on the virtuous and well
disposed, of a degraded paper currency, authorized by law, or in any way countenanced by
Government."

-Gremlin Nelson W. Aldrich, United States Senator, at a New York City dinner speech
on October 15, 1913 (two months before his pet Federal Reserve System was passed by the
Congress to create the very conditions he fraudulently represented to oppose, in IV
Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science #1, at 38 [Columbia University, New
York (1914)]. [return]

[20] When the United States Congress removed the last
remaining attachment of paper Federal Reserve notes to gold reserve requirements in 1968
--the Gremlins were there. From out of his nest on the 17th Floor of the Chase Manhattan
Bank descended one David Rockefeller on Congress, taking his jet and making his attack
sortie on Washington with Gremlin enscrewment in mind --whose very appearance itself at a
Committee Hearing was designed to make an important Statement: That we Gremlins now hold
the upper hand in the United States, and our grand plans for monetary enscrewment will no
longer be restrained on account of some lingering silly little anachronistic gold ratio
requirements left over from another era. This is the modern age with computers, Congress,
and you just don't need to concern yourself none with that old medieval stuff. See the
"Statement of David Rockefeller" in the Gold Cover Hearings
["Hearings Before the Committee on Banking and Commerce of the United States
Senate"], at page 141, 90th Congress, Second Session ["Repeal of Gold Reserve
Requirement"] (January, 1968)]. [return]

[21] The Legal Tender Acts, enacted during the Civil War, were
billed as a war measure:

"... to handle the vast amount of means necessary for the prosecution of this
war, to enable the people to pay in and the Government to pay out, we must have a larger
and more abundant currency that we have heretofore found to be necessary. The accustomed
currency is wholly inadequate. The Government has for many years used only gold and silver
for this purpose... The business of the Government and the business of the country require
some substitute for coin. We must therefore create a new [paper]... currency. We must
therefore create a public debt, establish a currency, and impose new taxes." - Speech
by Representative John Crisfield of Maryland, favoring enactment of the Legal Tender
Statutes [Congressional Globe, 37th Congress, 2nd Session, Appendix, page 43 et
seq. (February 5, 1862)]. [return]

[26] Yes, the Congress can do whatever it feels like with
issuing currency, as an attribute of its sovereignty:

"Congress, as the legislature of a sovereign nation, being expressly empowered
by the constitution to lay and collect taxes, pay the debts, and provide for a common
defense... [and also] to charter national banks, and to provide a national currency for
the whole people in the form of coin, treasury notes, and national bank bills, and [also
has] the power to make the notes of the Government a legal tender in payment of private
debts being one of the powers belonging to sovereignty in other civilized nations, and not
expressly withheld from Congress by the Constitution..." - Julliard vs. Greenman,
110
U.S. 421, at 466 (1884). [return]

[27] Earlier, I mentioned that Contracts we enter into now
down here with Heavenly Father overrule and supersede our First Estate Contracts, and that
the First Estate Contracts then fade away in significance. The Principle of Law that this
is based on is called by business lawyers in Commerce as the Merger Doctrine,
contracts that we enter into today overrule and extinguish contracts entered into in a
previous era; in other words, the most recent contract absorbs previous contracts. The
application of this Merger Doctrine is found in many settings. For example, in real
estate transactions, just as the old prior oral negotiations between a Seller and a
Purchaser are washed out by the Deed [23 Am Jur Deeds Section 261], so too do
oral precontract negotiations lose their identity and existence as those negotiations
later unite in the confluence of the written contract [Price vs. Block, 124 F.2nd
738]. This Merger Doctrine is a correct Principle of Nature I touched on in the
Armen Condo Letter [that Commercial contracts we enter into today with the King overrule
the restrainments resident in the Constitution of 1787], and this Principle now operates,
and has operated, in all factual settings. The Merger Doctrine recognizes that there are
different levels of importance or priorities in Nature, and what is done in the
past is always of less significance than what is done in the present (which is simply
reason, logic and common sense); so lesser important contracts from out of the
past, together with their lingering oral expectations and the like, fade away in
significance as they are merged into contracts of greater importance:

"Whenever a greater Estate and a less [Estate] coincide and meet in one and
the same person, without any intermediate estate, the less is immediately annihilated; or,
in the law phrase, is said to be merged, that is, sunk or drowned in the greater." -2
Blackstone Commentaries 177.

When corporations are said to merge, what actually happens is that the two
independent corporations lose their existence altogether as separate entities having
separate assets, liabilities, franchises, legal rights, and powers; and are totally
absorbed into the new single corporation [see Morris vs. Investment Life Insurance,
272 N.E.2nd 105, at 108].

And since Nature, so called, merely replicates the mind, will and intention
of its great Creator, the Principle of Nature that lawyers practicing Commercial Law call
the Merger Doctrine, also applies to have our great contemporary Celestial
Contracts with Father overrule and wash out our lessor previous existence First Estate
Contracts. Yes, when you know the Law in one setting, you know the Law in all settings, as
nothing changes from one factual setting to the next. [return]

[28] When words have several different meanings,
the word is said to be an Entente. In Law, the word Currency is such an Entente.
Over a period of time, words change meaning as new factual circumstances surface to alter
the use or perspective of something:

"The meaning of words changes. It is curious to note how many words wholly
lose their original or etymological meaning, and from usage and change of circumstances
acquire sometimes an opposite and often a different meaning... The common legal word indorse,
from the Latin in, upon, and Dorsum, the back. It used to be applied
literally and strictly to a writing upon the back of a paper. It is now well
settled that a good instrument may be made on the face of a bill or note." -
Pilmer vs. State Bank, 16 Iowa Reporter 321, at 329 (1864).

And on one hand, speaking like an economist, Currency has been defined to
be:

"Currency is capital seeking investment. While invested, it takes the form of
money, or of promises to deliver money on demand, but so soon as it is invested, it loses
its character of currency, and assumes that of stocks, houses, or commodities." -
Hugh Carey in Answer to the Currency Question, at page 6 [Lea & Blanchard,
Philadelphia (1840); Rare Book Collection, University of Rochester, Seward
Collection #410].

Before the Civil War there were actually few United States Treasury Notes floating
around the Countryside, as Currency at that time, because the King's Legal Tender Acts
had not yet been enacted, and the King had not yet decided that the time had come to pull
another grab and enact penal statutes to create a national exclusive monopoly on currency
instruments for himself. Privately minted coins, bank notes, and mining company script,
and the like, then constituted the nation's currency. With that in mind, the Illinois
Supreme Court once defined currency as:

"By the term currency is understood bank bills, or other paper money issued by
authority, which pass as and for coin... In the case of Judah vs. Hains [19 J.R.
144], the Court decided that a note, payable in bank notes current in the City of New
York, was a valid note. The Court said they will take notice that notes current in the
City of New York are of cash value throughout the State, and are distinguished by those
words from other bank notes, which are received at a discount, and hence it is immaterial
whether the notes of banks of other States might be tendered in payment, provided they are
current in the City of New York; in that case they are considered cash, equally with the
current bills of this State.

"From those authorities, it would seem that current bills, or currency, are of
the value of cash, and exclude the idea of depreciated money. If, then, currency is taken
as and for coin, it follows that such is its value..." - Richard Swift vs. James
Whitney, 20 Illinois 144, at 146 (1840).

The Supreme Court of Iowa once wrestled with a definition of currency:

"Currency is bank bills or other paper money which passes as a circulating
medium in the business community as, and for, the constitutional coin of the country. The
term `current funds' means currency money, par funds, or money circulating without any
discount..."

"The word currency is, as we have seen, far from having a settled,
fixed and precise meaning. And even if it had such a meaning in general, it might acquire
in certain localities, or among certain classes, a different signification." -
Pilmer vs. State Bank, 16 Iowa Reporter 321, at 328 (1864).

And in more recent times, the King, having sealed up with his gun barrel muscle
tactics a national monopoly on circulating currency instruments, an Appellate Court in
Illinois now changed the meaning of currency once again:

"Currency has been defined as funds or money circulating in the business
community without any discount, excluding the idea of depreciated paper money." - Jake
less vs. S. Alport, 217 Illinois Appellate 14, at 17 (1920).

Here in the 1980's, the editors of Black's Law Dictionary, functioning as
the Government Billboards in the sense that the focus point of everything is always
juristic: Some slice of Lex over here, or some Case over there. Continuing on with
their Government center of gravity on everything the way they do, Black's defines
currency as only to include those coins, banknotes, and paper money that the King has
officially recognized in his Legal Tender lex [as if either we or our Fathers in
the 1800's really needed the King]:

"Currency: Coined money and such banknotes or other paper money as are
authorized by law and do in fact circulate from hand to hand as the medium of exchange.
See... Legal Tender [no cases are cited]." - Black's Law Dictionary,
5th Edition.

When those cases from the 1800's stated that Currency meant Notes [and Notes
are promises to pay] that are exchanged at par, what they mean is that those paper
Notes carry an immediate or current maturity date. To redeem a note at par
meant to receive 100% exchange for the Face Value that was stated on the Note; if the Note
stated the Face Value of 10 Gold Eagles, then if the Note was redeemed at par 10
Gold Eagles would then be yours; if redeemed at 90% of par, then 9 Gold Eagles would be
yours. Therefore, when the Maturity Date was current (immediate), the Note could be
exchanged for gold or silver at par, if in fact you wanted the coin instead of the
Note. If the Note was exchangeable for hard coin say, one or five years out in the future,
then such a Note was not current, and would only be exchanged for coin at below par
(the percentage differential between the par and the sub-par negotiated was the interest
carrying cost the new Note holder had to bear while he sat and waited for the Maturity
Date to arrive). But today, Black's has done away with all of this, we have Legal
Tender statutes now in the modern era, and you just don't need to concern yourself with
none of that privately minted stuff. [return]

[29] The King modeled his bank after the Bank of Amsterdam.
Before the Bank of England was established, English mercantile writers such as Sir Josiah
Childe and Thomas Yaranton placed the Crown on notice that "... the Amsterdam bank
was of so immense advantage to them..." because Dutch Government Debt Instruments
"... go in Trade equal with Ready Money, yea, better in many parts of the World than
Money." [quoted by Dickerson in The Financial Revolution in England: a Study in
the Development of Public Credit, 1688-1756, at page 5 (MacMillian Company, London,
1967)]. The Bank of Amsterdam had begun as a Warehouse for the safe storage of gold and
silver belonging largely to Merchants. A Merchant would deposit his precious metal for
safekeeping, with a receipt given in return; and the banker charged a fee for the
safekeeping. But soon a few Merchants wanted the receipts to be divisible, because they
wanted to negotiate just the receipt itself, without having to bother making arrangements
to physically arrange an exchange of the gold or silver. While the Merchants were looking
at ways to save time here and there, the bankers themselves were developing a few ideas of
their own; the bankers noticed that only some small percentage of the gold and silver
actually came and went in and out the doors, so they started to loan out gold that was not
theirs. Now this was getting interesting --charging both for the storage and also
collecting interest on the property of others; and its allure attracted the attention of a
Gremlin, Mr. John Law, who used this concept as a basis for developing a Government
monetary theory similar to what Gremlin John Maynard Keynes would be writing about two
centuries later:

"This theory [of John Law's] was that the economic system of that day was
being starved because of insufficient supplies of money. And using the Bank of Amsterdam
as a model, he had a scheme for producing all the money a nation needed." - John
Flynn in Men of Wealth, at 51 [Simon and Schuster, New York (1941)].

For nearly two decades, John Law shopped his theories around European Juristic
Institutions, with his plans falling on death ears, but one day a window opened for his
intrigues to be used. After King Louis the 14th of France had depleted his Treasury funds
in 1716, he turned to John Law who he had previously rebuffed. John Law established the
Banque Generale with himself at the top; soon it was named the Royal Bank with
a monopoly charter granted on the issuance of money -- and John Law issued bales of paper
money, and so, not surprisingly, prosperity was rampant:

"It is not to be wondered that for a few brief months Paris hailed the
magician who had produced all these rabbits from his hat. Crowds followed his carriage.
People struggled to get a glimpse of him. The nobles of France hung around his anteroom,
begging a word from him." - Men of Wealth, id., at 75.

John Law followed the Gremlin script for enscrewment right down the line; all gold
and silver was accumulated in the hands of his Royal Bank; public ownership of gold
was outlawed; devaluations transpired; inflation mounted and illiquidity was in the air as
debt instruments began to be difficult to service. John Law fled France in 1720, with the
mobs who had once hailed him for being a financial genius now calling for his head. If
this economic scenario sounds at all familiar to you, it should, because Gremlins find it
unnecessary to change, alter, modify, or rearrange Their Modus Operandi with the
passage of time, as they go about their work running one civilization into the ground
after another:

"As a New Dealer [John Law] was not greatly different in one respect
from the apostles of the mercantilist school -- the Colberts, the Roosevelts, the
Daladiers, the Hitlers and Mussolinis... who sought to create income and work by
state-fostered public works and who labored to check the flow of gold away from their
borders. He introduced something new, however, that the Hitlers, the Mussolinis, the
Roosevelts, the Daladiers and the Chamberlains have imitated -- the creation of funds for
these purposes through the instrumentalities of the modern bank. Law is the precursor of
the inflationist redeemers." - Men of Wealth, id.

So the Bank of England was modeled after the Bank of Amsterdam which had been
created early in the 1600's, and the Dutch bank in turn had been modeled after the Bank of
Venice [as reported by Charles Wilson in The Dutch Republic and the Civilization of the
Seventeenth Century, at page 25; McGraw Hill, New York (1968)]. The Bank of England
became so successful at selling Government debt instruments that it soon became the
prototype for public banks where looters in other nations sought similar objectives of
grabbing more money for themselves without having to ask their subjects for it. Under the
direction of a series of astute financial moves, England's new Bank quickly created
investor confidence in Government funded debt instruments, enabling the Crown to borrow
large sums of money at steadily declining rates of interest, rather than go through the
nuisance and irritation of raising taxes dramatically. Writing in The Spectator,
Joseph Addison once compared Government credit loans to:

"... a beautiful Virgin seated upon a throne of Gold possess'd of the powers
of a Croesus to convert whatever she pleas'd into that precious Metal [Croesus was
a King of Lydia in the 6th Century, B.C., and possessed vast wealth; hence Croesus
means any fabulously wealthy man.]" - quoted by Dickerson in The Financial
Revolution in England: a Study in the Development of Public Credit, 1688-1756, inside
the front page [MacMillian Company, London, 1967)]. [return]

[30] "The history of the law of money evidences a
constant struggle between the customs of trade and the doctrine of freedom of contract, on
the one hand, and on the other, the exercise of the political power for the needs of
Government or the relief of private debtors [meaning banking Gremlins]." - Phanor J.
Eder, writing in "Legal Theories of Money," 20 Cornell Law Quarterly 52,
at 53 (1934). [return]

[31] There is some value in turning around and looking back at
the past to uncover the movements of men in other ages, because once their behavior in
that setting is known, then the real meaning of the movements of men today are exposed:

"If we consider the shortness of human life, and our limited knowledge, even
of what passes in our own time, we must be sensible that we should be forever children in
understanding, were it not for this invention, which extends our experience to all past
ages, and to the most distant nations; making them contribute as much to our improvement
in wisdom, as they had actually laid under our observation. A man acquainted with history
may, in some respect, be said to have lived from the beginning of the world, and to have
been making continual additions to his stock of knowledge in every country." - David
Hume in Philosophical Works ["Of the Study of History"], at page 390;
[Longmans Green, London (1898); Greene and Grosse, Editors].

But Anglo-Saxon Kings are not the only looters to play this game. For a discussion
of Monetary Debasement being pulled off in B.C. times, see the writings of Phanor J. Eder
in The Gold Clause Cases in Light of History, 23 Georgetown Law Journal 369, at
page 722 (Part II) (1935). [return]

[32] The Queen died shortly after making this promise to her
subjects, but her successor honored her commitment. See Simon, Historical Account of
Irish Coins, at page 38 (1749). [return]

[33] For additional Commentary on the use of debased currency
against the Irish rebels, see generally, John Hannigan, The Monetary and Legal Tender
Acts of 1933-34 and the Law, 14 Boston University Law Review 485, at 504 (1934). [return]

[34] "Once the Convention was under way, proposals that
the Federal Government be given the power to coin money and fix its value and that both
the Federal and State Governments be vested with authority to emit bills of credit
triggered heated debate over the appropriate limits of governmental monetary power."
- Getman, The Right to Use Gold Clauses in Contracts, XLII Brooklyn Law Review 479,
at 489 (1976). See generally, Max Farrand, Editor, The Records of the Federal
Convention of 1787 [Yale University Press (1937)], 4 volumes. So what we are left with
today is the milktoast of Article I, Section 10. [return]

[36] Professors Peacock and Wiseman correctly point out that a
Government's call for a spirit of sacrifice leads to the general acceptance of a higher
tax rate at the end of a major war, rather than at the beginning of the war [see A.T.
Peacock and J. Wiseman in The Growth of Public Expenditures in the United Kingdom
(Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1961);] but as is the caliber of collegiate intelligentsia,
never is there any discussion of the quiet movements of Gremlins in the shadows directing
the administrative operations of their nominees that they had previously planted and
placed in political jurisdictions; and so as a result, the true illicit nature of the lex
designed to create Special Interest benefits and damages not related to legitimate
juristic police power operations, remains obscured. The last annulment institution in the
United States for illicit lex, the Supreme Court, is moving in the right direction
generally, but they still need some fine tuning:

"The requirement of a legitimate public purpose guarantees that the State is
exercising its police power, rather than providing a benefit to special interests." -
Energy Reserves vs. Kansas Power, 459
U.S. 400, at 412 (1983). [return]

[37] "But the history of paper money, without any
adequate funds pledged to redeem it, and resting merely upon the pledge of national faith,
has been in all ages and in all nations the same. It has constantly become more and more
depreciated; and in some instances has ceased from this cause to have any circulation
whatsoever, whether issued by the irresistible edict of a despot, or the more alluring
order of a republican congress." - Joseph Story, III Commentaries on the
Constitution, at page 225 ["Prohibitions - Paper Money"] (Cambridge, 1833).
[return]

[38] "... the reader should note especially the `striking
parallels to modern times' [in comparison to King Solon in 594 B.C., when he pulled off
currency debasement acts by]... military adventures draining treasuries, threats of
national bankruptcy, inflations, massive liquidations of debt, debasement of all coinage,
disputes over sovereign prerogatives concerning money..." -Henry Holzer, Government's
Money Monopoly, page 15 [Books in Focus, New York City (1981)]. [return]

[39] Down to the present day, pleas and petitions for a
reinstatement of the Gold Standard, of just some type, continuously falls on death ears in
Congress [maybe because that is not OUR Congress]. In December of 1981, the House Banking,
Finance and Urban Affairs Committee entertained such a petition [see Grassroots
Hearings on the Economy, Part III, "Petition for Hearings on HR 391 -- Rhode
Islanders for a Gold Standard," 97th Congress, First Session, starting at 499 (GPO,
1981)], but the petition was tossed aside and ignored. [return]

[40] "A strange fallacy has crept into the reasoning on
this subject. It has been supposed, that a corporation is some great, independent thing;
and that the power to erect it is a great, substantive, independent power; whereas in
truth, a corporation is but a legal capacity, quality, or means to an end; and the power
to erect it is, or may be, an implied and incidental power. A corporation is never the
end, for which other powers are exercised; but a means, by which other objects are
accomplished." - Joseph Story, in III Commentaries on the Constitution 131,
["Powers of Congress"] (Cambridge, 1833). [return]

[43] "The Bill of Rights is the primary source of
expressed information as to what is meant by Constitutional liberty. Its safeguards secure
the climate which the Law of Freedom needs in order to exist. It is true that they were
added to the Constitution to operate solely against Federal power [Barron vs. Baltimore,
32
U.S. 243, at 247 (1833)]. But the Fourteenth Amendment was added in 1868 in response
for a demand for national protection against abuses of State power. A series of decisions
over the last 25 years has held that many rights were indeed extended against the states
by that Amendment. It is indeed fair to say that from 1962 to 1969 the very face of the
Law changed. Those years witnessed the extension to the States of nine of the specifics of
the Bill of Rights, decisions which have profound impact on American life, requiring the
deep involvement of State courts in the application of Federal Law." - Justice
William Brennan in Remarks, 36 Rutgers Law Review 725, at 727 (1984). [return]

Patriots and Tax Protestors can carry on all they want with demanding, and
believing, that they posses some Constitutional Rights, and just like Justice Brennan's remarks,
there are many high, noble and lofty characterizations of those Rights available -- but
those remarks, together with the Tax Protestor's demands, are all for naught when
one tiny little device surfaces in a grievance: A Commercial Contract. By the end of this
Letter the elevated priority in Nature that contracts ascend to in settling grievances
should become apparent, whenever they are in effect; a doctrinal concept if unlearned now,
Mr. May, will be learned in on uncertain terms before Father at the Last Day.

[44] Inflation is a Tort, and can be claimed as such in damage
awards. See the Supreme Court in Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation vs. Pfifer,
462
U.S. 523 (1983). And Inflation is also a tax, and is treated as income by the Treasury
Department; in the Annual Report of the Secretary of the Treasury for 1919, on page
213, there lies the interesting admission that the large federal deficits of 1917 to 1919,
totaling then some $23 billion, were financed by money creation, and other devices. [return]

[45] "The purpose of the Federal Reserve System is to
contribute, to the maximum extent that monetary policy can contribute, to the achievement
of sustained high employment, stable values, and a rising standard of living for all
Americans." - William McChesney Martin, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, in the
Federal Reserve after 50 Years ["Hearings before the Subcommittee on Domestic
Finance"], 88th Congress, 2nd Session, Volume I, page 16 [GPO Washington (January and
February, 1964)]. [return]

[46] Economists watch Fed monetary statistics quite closely,
as if they were national policy tools (which they are). Statistics generally targeted for
close observation are those two monetary velocity instruments called M-1 and M-2, as they
are indications of the direction of the future percentage advance of the GNP and
Inflation. See the Velocity of Money by George Garvey and Martin Blyn, [Federal
Reserve Bank, New York (1969)]. The true point of origin of all directional changes in the
economy necessarily originates with that institution that controls the aggregate issuance
of its circulating instruments; at the present time, this is the Fed and its Open
Market Committee, a fact that the Congress collectively is well aware of but not
always acknowledged publicly. See Conduct of Monetary Policy in Hearings before the
Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, House of Representatives, 96th Congress,
First Session, Serial Number 96-22 (July, 1979), which discusses the cascading effect of
decisions of the Open Market Committee on multiple macroeconomic indicia. [return]

[47] An Intelligentsia clown once hired by Gremlins to
do some writing for them wrote a few words to talk about the Gremlin perception of
prosperity:

"An economic system does not have to be expansive -- that is, constantly
increasing its production of wealth -- and it might well be possible for people to be
completely happy in a nonexpansive economic system if they were accustomed to it. In the
twentieth century, however, the people of our culture have been living under expansive
conditions for generations. Their minds are psychologically adjusted to expansion, and
they feel deeply frustrated unless they are better off each year than they were the
previous year. The economic system itself has become organized for expansion, and if it
does not expand it tends to collapse [and when it does collapse, it is because the
Gremlins were there]." - Carroll Quigley in Tragedy and Hope, at 497
[MacMillian Company, New York (1966)]. [return]

[48] The Federal Reserve Board is a very handy instrument to
massage economies, create depressions, and run civilizations into the ground with. For
example, in the late 1920's, there was an era of speculation in the securities markets of
the United States; after a while in any market, what appears to be speculation will
always surface when rising prices and highly leveraged loans make their institutionalized
appearance on the scene. Economists, bureaucratic theorists, and other clowns will cast speculation
into an illicit image, but speculation, so called, is nothing more than a
manifestation of strong prosperity -- and Gremlins do not want you and I to have sustained
protracted prosperity, they want us to experience economic starvation like they wanted
physical starvation for those millions of Ukrainians who were murdered in the great
manufactured Famine of 1932-33. Easy high percentage loans are an important ingredient to
create speculation, so one of the devices used by Rothschild Gremlins to create a
balloon of American speculation was to lower the rate of interest charged by the Federal
Reserve Board to member banks:

"Nothing did more to spur the boom in stocks than the decision made by the New
York Federal Reserve Bank, in the Spring of 1927, to cut the rediscount rate. Benjamin
Strong, Governor of the bank, was chief advocate of this unwise measure, which was taken
largely at the behest of Montagu Norman of the Bank of England [Montagu Norman was a
Rothschild nominee planted in the Bank of England]. Ostensibly, this easy money policy was
designed to stop the flow of gold out of England [as usual, deception is present
when Gremlins are running the show]. Its primary effect, however, was to cause a
reevaluation of all securities [upward], and to further inflate our already inflationary
credit system by making large sums of money available for financing stock
speculation." - Bernard Baruch,, in his autobiography Baruch: the Public Years,
at 221 [Holt Rheinhart & Winston, New York (1960)].

The well known Gremlin economist John K. Galbraith dismisses the view that the
action of the Federal Reserve Board authorities in cutting the rediscount rate in the
Spring of 1927 had much effect on the elevated speculation which followed, on the grounds
that this:

"... explanation obviously assumes that people will always speculate if they
can get the money to finance it. Nothing can be farther from the truth. There were times
before and there have been long periods since when credit was plentiful and cheap -- far
cheaper than in 1927 to 1929 -- and when speculation was negligible. Nor, as we shall see
later, was speculation out of control after 1927, except that it was beyond the reach of
men who did not want in the least to control it." - John K. Galbraith in The Great
Crash, page 16 [Houghton Mifflin, Boston (1955)].

Speculation is actually fueled by the ability to easily obtain highly leveraged
loans in a market characterized by rapidly rising prices. Your analogy of 1927, Mr.
Galbraith, to previous eras is defective because other previous periods of cheap credit
was deficient in possessing the twin important structural speculation requirements
of easily obtainable highly leveraged loans and rapidly rising prices; if both highly
leveraged loans and rapidly rising prices are not present, then cheap credit loans will
not induce speculation. And so the failure of cheap and plentiful credit loans in
previous eras to trigger speculation then, is not relevant and does not negate the
highly stimulating effect that such inexpensive credit loans created in the American
securities markets from 1927 to 1929, since declining rates of interest very much act as
an accelerant on markets already structurally conditioned for speculation by the
twin important indicia of highly leveraged loans and rapidly rising prices. You really are
not competent to be an economist, Mr. Galbraith -- and incidentally, managing speculation,
so called, was very much within the reach of your brothers who very much wanted to control
it, totally. Sorry, Mr. Galbraith, but you don't do a very good job of covering the
tracks of your Gremlin brothers from the First Estate who, like you, are repeating the
same judgment mistakes now that you made then.

Having created something illicit, having created something that just needs
and is begging for a corrective solution, Gremlins acting through their
instrumentality, the Federal Reserve Board, in 1929 now had just the right medicine to fix
this wicked Speculation, as one visible Rothschild nominee, Mr. Montagu Norman,
once again made his descent sortie on Washington in vulture trajectory, and told Andrew
Mellon what to do next:

"... the Federal Reserve Board issued a formal statement today declaring that
it conceived it to be its duty in `the immediate situation' to restrain the use, either
directly or indirectly, of Federal Reserve credit facilities in aid of the froth of
speculative credit...

"No information could be obtained from Mr. Norman or American officials
concerning the purpose of his visit [to Washington] other than he had come here for a
general discussion of international financial conditions with the System and members of
the [Federal Reserve] Board...

"All efforts to obtain any further interpretation of the action of the Federal
Reserve Board than that contained in its formal statement were futile...

"The decision by the Federal Reserve Board to take so definite a stand in
connection with its attitude towards speculative activities, was made, it is understood,
only after a conference in which Secretary Mellon, as Chairman [of the Federal Reserve] ex-officio
participated [meaning that Gremlin Andrew Mellon directed, after having received
his instructions from the Rothschilds through Montagu Norman]...

"The frankness of its announcement today therefore added to the interest it
caused in financial circles." - The New York Times ["Loan Curb Hinted by
Federal Reserve Board; States Duty in `the Immediate Situation' is to restrain Speculative
Credit"], page 1 (February 7, 1929).

Who is Montagu Norman? A Gremlin who was recognized as being very powerful at that
time [Carroll Quigley claims the Wall Street Journal for November 11, 1927
characterized Montagu Norman as "... the currency dictator of Europe."] Like all
good hardworking Gremlins putting in their honest days' labor, they are answerable to
another person up the line [even the Rothschilds know from whence their benefits
originate]; and like a few other world class Gremlins, Montagu Norman held the high
honor of running an entire civilization into the ground:

"... Norman held the position [of Chancellor of the Exchequer] for
twenty-four years (1920-1944), during which he became the chief architect of the
liquidation of Britain's global preeminence." - Carroll Quigley in Tragedy and
Hope, at 325 [MacMillian Company, New York (1966)].

He had brilliance, he had genius, he had savior-faire, and Montagu Norman
tied it all together with slick Gremlin finesse when he so smoothly ran Great
Britain into the ground with so very few people even knowing that he had done so; and so
when Montagu Norman brought his conquests to other continents, for and on behalf of his
Rothschild sponsors, he would also be leaving the ruins of those once majestic
civilizations with little indication that he had been there.

The year 1929 started out to be a great year, and American businessmen had positive
expectations [see the many businessmen quoted through the Wall Street Journal for
January 1, 1929]; but the world's Gremlins had a few ideas of their own:

"On February 15, 1929, the Federal Advisory Council adopted the following
resolution:

"The Council believes that every effort should be made to correct the present
situation in the speculative markets before resorting to an advance in rates.

"The Council in reviewing present conditions finds that in spite of the
cooperation of member banks, the measures so far adopted have not been effective in
correcting the present situation of the money market. The Council, therefore, recommends
that the Federal Reserve Board permit the Federal Reserve banks to raise their rediscount
rate immediately and maintain a rate consistent with the cost of commercial credit."
-Transcript of the minutes of the 3:10pm Meeting of the Federal Advisory Council in
the Federal Reserve Board Room (April 19, 1929) {National Archives ["Federal Reserve
Board File"], Washington, D.C.}. The Federal Reserve Board's Federal Advisory
Council was abolished in the 1930's.

The Federal Advisory Council had also met twice earlier that day, at 10:05am
and at 12:10pm. There had been an ominous atmosphere of excitement in the air that day:

"The prospect of further developments of importance in regard to the
Government's attitude on the credit situation appeared today when members of the Federal
Advisory Council... met in a special session and later held a joint conference with the
Board [the 12:10pm meeting]. Resolutions were adopted by the Council and transmitted to
the Board, but their purport was closely guarded. ... An atmosphere of deep mystery was
thrown about the proceedings both by the Board and the Council. No advance announcement
had been made that an extraordinary session of the Council was contemplated, and in fact
that the members were in the city became known only when newspaper correspondents happened
to see some of them entering the Treasury Department building. Even after that evasive
replies were given, until it became apparent that such tactics were futile... While the
joint meeting was in progress at the Treasury Department, every effort was made to guard
the proceedings and a group of newspaper correspondents were asked to leave the corridor.
The meeting of the Council attracted particular attention in view of the fact that it had
met here in regular session on February 14th, a week following the Reserve Board's warning
statement against the excessive use of Reserve System credit in speculative operations on
the stock market." - The New York Times ["Reserve Council Confers in
Haste: Atmosphere of Mystery is Thrown About Its Meeting in Washington"], page 9
(April 20, 1929).

A month later, one more Gremlin turn of the screws was administered to the economy:

"The Federal Advisory Council has reviewed carefully the credit situation. It
continues to agree with the view of the Federal Reserve Board as expressed in its
statement of February 5, 1929 that `an excessive amount of the country's credit has been
absorbed in speculative security loans.' The policy pursued by the Federal Reserve Board
has had a beneficial effect due largely to the loyal cooperation of the banks of the
country. The efforts in this direction should be continued, but the Council notes that
while the total amount of Federal Reserve credit being used has been reduced, `the amount
of the country's credit absorbed in speculative security loans' has not been substantially
lowered.

"Therefore, the Council recommends to the Federal Reserve Board that the time
has come to grant permission to raise the rediscount rates to six percent to those Federal
Reserve Banks requesting it, thus bringing the rediscount rates into closer relation with
generally prevailing commercial money rates. The Council believes that improvement in
financial conditions and a consequent reduction of the rate structure will thereby be
brought about more quickly, thus best safeguarding commerce, industry, and
agriculture." - Resolution approved by the Federal Advisory Council, in its
2:30pm Meeting on May 21, 1929 {National Archives ["Federal Reserve Board
File"], Washington, D.C.}.

While the Gremlins controlling the Federal Reserve were busy raising interest
rates, the analytical staff of the Federal Reserve was cognizant of the extreme economic
damages such an elevated rate of interest was doing to Commerce, Industry, and Agriculture
[directly contrary to the beneficial effect claimed by the Federal Advisory Council]:

"The higher money rates do not appear to have restricted short term commercial
borrowings, but in a number of ways the present high level of money rates is beginning to
have a detrimental effect upon business.

"1. The volume of building operations has been declining largely because of
difficulty in obtaining second mortgage money and loans for building operations and also
difficulty in selling real estate bonds. Stock financing which has been resorted to in
some cases has only partly met the requirements.

"2. A good many state, municipal, railway and other projects, ordinarily
financed through bonds and notes, have been postponed because of difficulty in securing at
reasonable prices...

"3. Reduced foreign financing in the United States... are diminishing the
purchasing power of those countries for our products, a tendency which is likely to be
reflected sooner or later in reduced exports.

"It thus seems reasonably certain that present money conditions, if long
continued, will have a seriously detrimental effect upon business conditions, and the
longer they are continued the more serious will be the effect. The volume of business now
appears to be sustained in part by the production of automobiles considerably in excess of
retail purchases with a consequent stimulating effect upon the steel industry..." -
Preliminary Memorandum for the Open Market Investment Committee ["Effects on
Business"]; Prepared for the 5:00pm Meeting of the Fed's Open Market Investment
Committee on April 1, 1929 {National Archives ["Federal Reserve Board File"],
Washington, D.C.}.

In September of 1929, the Open Market Committee would be warning that:

"... there are some indications of a possible impending recession."

Six months earlier in April, the economy was still experiencing the stimulating
effect of surplus automobile production, but by September, now automobile manufacturing
was going to the dogs:

"Building activity has been reduced still further; automobile production has
been receding, and steel production has reflected these tendencies."

And as for the claimed stimulating effect high rates of interest would be
having on agriculture, in fact Gremlin enscrewment was beginning to produce its desired
objective of damages:

"The size of the year's crops is expected to be generally smaller than a year
ago. With higher prices the total return to the farmer may be not short of a year ago...
The continued pressure on the credit situation has also been reflected by increasing
reports from some localities of difficulties of agriculture in securing an adequate supply
of credit." - All three quotations are from the Minutes of the Open Market
Investment Committee, September 24, 1929 {National Archives ["Federal Reserve
Board File"], Washington, D.C.}.

That greasy little Gremlin, Paul Warburg, very much had his nose in all of this. He
slipped into a Federal Advisory Council Meeting that was held on May 21, 1929, as
the alternate for W.C. Potter, and he made a Statement and engaged in conversation that
Walter Lichtenstein, Council Secretary, did not feel like recording [See Minutes of
Federal Advisory Council for May 21, 1929].

The combined effect of the many manipulative devices pulled by Gremlins in the Fed
in the latter 1920's was a great contraction in the economy [see generally a protracted
chapter called "The Great Contraction" in A Monetary History of the United
States, 1867-1960 by Milton Friedman [Princeton University Press, Princeton (1963)]. [return]

[49] "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard
to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are
naturally alert to repel invasion of the liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest
dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without
understanding." - Justice Louis Brandeis in Olmstead vs. United States, 277
U.S. 438, at 479 (1927).

Although the Gremlins who sneaked the Federal Reserve Act through Congress
were by no means well meaning, they did try to convey the image that this piece of
legislation was so oriented. [return]

[50] Greasy little Gremlins like Paul Warburg are steeped in
the strategic use of deception as a tool to accomplish their objectives; and like the
mentor from the First Estate, Lucifer, they find many circumstances come to pass where the
use of such deception has yielded impressive immediate benefits --yet Father continues to
warn against it. This deceptive intellectual orientation of Gremlins has been so ingrained
in them from the First Estate, that Gremlins find the accurate presentation of facts now
to be very difficult to construct. This deception surfaced, for example, when one Gremlin
was speaking highly of another Gremlin:

"... it is known only to a very few exactly how great is the indebtedness of
the United States to Mr. Warburg. For it may be stated without fear of contradiction that
in its fundamental features the Federal Reserve Act is the work of Mr. Warburg more than
any other man in the country... the Federal Reserve Act has frankly accepted the
principles of the Aldrich bill; and these principles... were the creation of Mr. Warburg
and Mr. Warburg alone... But having set out on the task [to create the Federal Reserve],
there was no stopping [Paul Warburg], and from year to year essay upon essay flowed from
his facile pen, giving more precision and point to his fundamental principles until he was
recognized as the real leader in the new movement. The Federal Reserve Act will be
associated in history with the name of Paul Warburg..."

-Gremlin Edwin Seligman offering introductory remarks in IV Proceedings of the
Academy of Political Science #4, at 387 [Columbia University, New York (April, 1914)];
there then follows numerous essays written by Paul Warburg praising the circulation of
paper currency and the Federal Reserve System.

Yet Paul Warburg did not intellectually create the Federal Reserve System -- the
Rothschilds did, but the Rothschilds wanted to stay in the background and blend themselves
into the shadowy corners of Europe; Paul Warburg was hired by them to take all the flack
among those who could be expected to probe a little deeper in searching for the Fed's
Gremlin sponsors.

"Paul Warburg is the man who got the Federal Reserve Act together after the
Aldrich Plan aroused such nationwide resentment and opposition. The mastermind of both
plans was Baron Alfred Rothschild of London." -Elisha Garrison in Roosevelt,
Wilson and the Federal Reserve Law [Christopher Publishing Housing, Boston (1931)]. [return]

[51] The illicit statutory sponsorship of the Federal Reserve
Board is often disputed by collegiate intelligentsia clowns who, without possessing
any factual elements to countermand the background workings of determined Gremlins,
continue to point to Congress itself as the institution responsible for the creation of
the Federal Reserve. Gremlin Paul Warburg himself has had a few words to say about just
where the true origin of statutes is to be found:

"I am told that Congress and the State Legislatures make the laws... Instead
of saying that legislators make the laws, it would be far more correct to say that
legislatures merely put the finishing touches on the law. To say that they "make the
laws" is like saying that the books are made by bookbinders, forgetting that there
are authors, printers, and proofreaders too.

"... The motive power in lawmaking is all supplied from somewhere outside the
legislative halls... Some intellect outside the realm of active politics first conceives
an idea. It spreads to the minds of other individuals, slowly at first, but gradually
gaining momentum. Presently there is an organized movement in its favor; then comes the
deluge of propaganda, until the proposal becomes an issue and the politicians begin to
take note of it. A law is half made, and more than half made, when a large body of
aggressive support has been mobilized among the voters; yet during this part of the
process the legislative bodies have nothing whatever to do with it." -Gremlin Paul
Warburg explaining himself in Volume I The Federal Reserve System: its Origins and
Growth, at 3 [MacMillian Company, New York (1930)]. [return]

[52] General Public accountability of the Fed is appropriate
to the extent that the Fed has been endowed by its creator with a limited juristic mission
in monetary areas touching a general public interest; and one of the most important
instruments of Federal Reserve power lies in the Open Market Committee. Numerous
attempts just to get some minimal public dissemination on transcripts of the Federal Open
Market Committee meetings has fallen on death ears; shrouding their daily maneuverings
behind a veil of secrecy -- a veil they would like to maintain erected for as long as
possible (time has a way of greatly diminishing the possible adverse reaction that
unfavorable information triggers). The Congress was once propositioned with the idea of
requiring the FOMC to publish publicly, detailed minutes of their meetings. In trying to
disable the Congress from doing this, an old Gremlin stratagem was relied upon: Agree with
the necessity for the idea being expounded (so now your adversary is off guard), but
create impediments to the idea by raising technical reservations that appear to be
difficult to overcome and otherwise discredit the idea as being infeasible for some
technical reason. And in overcoming HR 4478, this is just what Gremlins in the Fed did
(Gremlins do not want Government in the sunshine) [see the testimony of imp bureaucrat
Fredrick Schultz as he said he agreed with the objectives, but then turned around and
threw technical reservations at the idea to try and discredit the idea on its merits, in A
Bill to Amend the Federal Reserve Act ["Hearings Before a Subcommittee on
Domestic Monetary Policy on HR 4478 of the House Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban
Affairs"], 97th Congress, First Session (September, 1981)]. [return]

[53] "It is no secret that I have long been concerned
about the aloofness of the Federal Reserve from both the executive branch and the
Congress. Although the Federal Reserve System is a creature of Congress, it is not subject
to any of the usual Government budgetary, auditing and appropriations procedures."
-Wright Patman, Chairman of the House Committee on Domestic Finance, in The Federal
Reserve after 50 Years ["Hearings before the Subcommittee on Domestic
Finance"], 88th Congress, 2nd Session, Volume 1, page 8 [GPO, Washington, D.C.
(January and February, 1964)]. [return]

[54] But don't expect such a repurchase to ever take place;
the Federal Reserve Board gives the Congress all profits from certain selected trading
activities. In the latter 1970's, this was amounting to approximately $10 billion a year;
not an easy loss of revenue for a greedy fat Congress to go without. So the Congress does
not want to disturb the Fed, and your letters to them, encouraging them to do so, will
continue to fall on death ears. [return]

[55] Those Rothschild Gremlins never stop with their
conquests. After mentioning the dominance of the Rothschilds in European financial
affairs, a United States Senator once wrote:

"... it might be... possible for 20 or 30 individuals if they controlled the
United States Federal Reserve Board, the Bank of England, the Bank of France, and the Bank
of Germany, to enter into a conspiracy to regulate the volume of the world's currency,
thereby resultantly controlling the prices of the world's commodities, so vitally
affecting the happiness, contentment, occupation, and prosperity of the world's
population. If successful in effecting such a control, by expanding the world's currency
they could inflate prices of all the world's commodities and then distribute at fictitious
values the securities which they had accumulated. After such accomplishments the could
then decrease the volume of money thus resultantly deflating or diminishing the prices of
all the world's commodities with resultant greatly diminished prices in securities and
then buy back at bargain prices the securities that they had distributed previously at
inflated prices. If such a conspiracy existed and continued unchecked this expansion of
the volume of money with increased prices and distribution of securities held by the few
followed by a period of decreased volume of money with resultant decreased prices of all
the world's commodities with reaccumulation of securities at bargain prices would
ultimately result in all the people outside of the few conspirators becoming practically
vassals and peons with the inevitable result that the people themselves would rise up in
their wrath and take from the conspirators their wealth and probably their lives." -
Senator Jonathan Bourne, Jr. of Oregon, expressing comments on the Wheeler Bill (S. 2487),
in Senate Document #109 entitled Independent Bimetallism or Bolshevism, 72nd
Congress, First Session, pages 8 and 9 [GPO (June 15, 1932)].

Senate Bill 2487 provided for the free coinage of silver and gold at a ratio of
16-to-1. [return]

[56] After characterizing Gremlin Volcker's politics as being
something of an enigma, the New York Times went on to say that Paul Volcker:

"... recognizes `that Gold and the fates have put him in a unique position,' a
role for which he believes... that he is singularly well equipped." - The New York
Times ["Sacrificial Way of Life for Reserve Chairman"], page 26 (Sunday,
June 19, 1983).

Yes, Mr. Volcker is very well equipped for his mission -- but not to usher
in a generation of prosperity; neither is his Federal Reserve position attributable to
"God and the fates," but actually to his brother from the First Estate, Lucifer,
whom Paul Volcker once betrayed -- and now Lucifer is going to get even at Father's Last
Day. [return]

[57] The theft of American gold bullion deposits from the Fort
Knox Depository in Kentucky by the Four Rockefeller Brothers, in which Paul Volcker
participated, was a smooth inside job -- a job which only duplicated a previous inside
Treasury job that was pulled off earlier in 1943:

"... 14,000 tons of silver from the Treasury reserve of American paper money
was secretly taken from the Treasury vaults (although still carried publicly on the
Treasury balance sheets)..."-Carroll Quigley in Tragedy and Hope, at 855
[MacMillian Company, New York (1974)].

[Mr. Quigley wants us to believe that the 14,000 tons of silver in its entirety
went into an Oak Ridge Government building for electrical wiring]. [return]

[58] During a speech at a Fred Hirsch Memorial Lecture
at Warwick University, Coventry, England, on November 9, 1978. [return]

[59] During Constitutional ratification discussions, our
Founding Fathers did not want to even talk about the possibility that a National Bank
might be created someday, due to the possible rejection the draft Constitution might
encounter as it went from one State to the next for Ratification:

"The power to incorporate a bank is not among those enumerated in the
constitution. It is known, that the very power, thus proposed, as a means, was rejected,
as an end, by the convention [of 1787], which formed the Constitution. A proposition was
made in that body, to authorize Congress to open canals, and an amendatory one to empower
them to create corporations. But the whole was rejected; and one of the reasons of the
rejection urged in debate was, that they then would have a power to create a bank, which
would render the great cities, where there was prejudices and jealousies on that subject,
adverse to the adoption of the Constitution [Volume 4, Jefferson's Correspondence, pages
523 and 524]." - Joseph Story in III Commentaries on the Constitution, at 128
["Powers of Congress"] (Cambridge, 1833).

However, just because the Creation of Corporations Clause never made it into
the final draft of the Constitution, does not disable the United States today from
creating corporations, since many other enabling acts were written into the Constitution
that, although sounding nice and making the Constitution look complete in appearances,
were actually jurisdictionally unnecessary.

[61] "That a national bank is an appropriate means to
carry into effect some of the enumerated powers of the Government, and that this can be
best done by erecting it into a corporation, may be established by the most satisfactory
reasoning. It has a relationship, more or less direct, to the power of collecting taxes,
to that of borrowing money, to that of regulating trade between the states, and to those
raising and maintaining fleets and armies. And it may be added, that it has a most
important bearing upon the regulation of currency between the states. It is an instrument,
which has been usually applied by Governments in the administration of their fiscal and
financial operations." - Joseph Story in III Commentaries on the Constitution
134, ["Powers of Congress"] (Cambridge, 1833). [return]

[63] Responsibility for the administration and enforcement of
the Revenue Laws is vested in the Secretary of the Treasury, pursuant to Title 26, Section 7801(a). In turn, by one
more layer of delegation, the Internal Revenue Service is vested with the tax collection
responsibilities for the Secretary. See Donaldson vs. United States, 400 U.S. 517, at 534 (1970), and 39
The Federal Register 2417, et seq. (1970). [return]

[64] Privateering and all of its associated intrigue of
smuggling, thievery, and pirates, was once quite active on the High Seas from the 1600's
up until the American Civil War. On the North Coast of Africa there was once numerous
occasions in the early 1800's when American hostages were grabbed and military engagements
were entered into against those little hoodlums called the Barbary Corsairs. [See The
Barbary Corsairs by S. Lane-Poole, State Mutual Books and Periodical Service, New York
(1985)]. Privateering was somewhat abolished, or perhaps toned down, by the Declaration
of Paris in 1856; but Privateering was extensive during the Civil War, and the
United States Congress soon would be giving President Abraham Lincoln a grant of
jurisdiction to commission Privateers. [See The Barbary Coast by Henry Field, C.
Scribner's Sons, New York (1893); and The Barbary Slaves by Stephen Clissold, P.
Elek Publishers, London (1977)]. For a short story on Privateers during the Civil
War, see the New York Times for Tuesday, September 29, 1863, page 1, in an article
entitled "Another Privateer Fitting Out," discussing how the Confederate ship TheFlorida was offered French police protection from seizure from Union ships by
France while she was parking at Brest shipyards for repairs. Yet, a variation on
Privateering continued into the 1900's, as Russian volunteer vessels once seized
neutral commerce in the Red Sea [see Edwin Moxen in Russian Raids on Neutral Commerce,
3 Michigan Law Review 1 (1904)]. For a discussion from a legal perspective on Privateering
and Letters of Marque, see The First Federal Court by Henry J. Bourguignon,
page 3 [American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia (1977)]. Today, Privateering
is a crime for American Citizens [see Title 18, Section 1654 "Arming or
Serving as Privateers"]. [return]

[66] To Harass Our People: the Irs and Government Abuse of
Power [Positive Publications, Washington, D.C. (1984)]. [return]

[67] Federal Judges took their cue long ago to lay off
legislative prerogatives in this area of circulating paper money:

"The case of Trevett vs. Weldon, in 1786, in Rhode Island, is an
instance of this sort... The judges in that case decided, that a law making paper money a
tender in payment of debts was unconstitutional and against the principles of magna carta.
They were compelled to appear before the legislature to vindicate themselves; and the next
year... they were left out of office for having questioned the legislative power." -
Joseph Story in III Commentaries on the Constitution, at 469, footnote 1
(Cambridge, 1833). [return]

[68] Whether or not there was a legal minimum quorum in the
United States Senate on that pre-Christmas December day of 1913, is disputed. [return]

[70] The Legal Tender statutes were enacted in the Civil War
era, when national resources were stretched thin:

"... to handle the vast amount of means necessary for the prosecution of this
war, to enable the people to pay in and the Government to pay out, we must have a larger
and more abundant currency that we have heretofore found to be necessary. The accustomed
currency [of hard gold and silver] is wholly inadequate. The Government has for many years
used only gold and silver for this purpose, and it is deeply lamented that it is obliged
to depart from this desirable standard. But we are left with no option." -
Representative John Crisfield of Maryland, in a speech before Congress on February 5, 1862
[Congressional Globe, 37th Congress, 2nd Session, Appendix, page 48 et seq.]. [return]

[71] "... the National Government [can] exercise... its
powers to establish and maintain a bank, implied as an incident to the borrowing, taxing,
war, and other powers specifically granted to the National Government by Article I,
Section 8 of the Constitution." - Helvering vs. Gerhardt, 304
U.S. 405, at 411 (1937). [return]

[72] "The power to regulate commerce is general and
unlimited in its terms. The full power to regulate a particular subject implies the whole
power, and leaves no residium." - Joseph Story in III Commentaries on the
Constitution, at 513 ["Powers of Congress -- Commerce"] (Cambridge, 1833). [return]

[73] "Here the substantive power to tax was allowed to be
employed for improving the currency." - Knox vs. Lee, 79
U.S. 457, at 544 (1871). [return]

[74] "The power to coin money is one of the ordinary
prerogatives of Sovereignty, and is almost universally exercised in order to preserve a
proper circulation of good coin of a known value in the home market... In England, this
prerogative belongs to the Crown; and in former ages, it was greatly abused; for base coin
was often coined and circulated by its authority, at a value far above its intrinsic
worth; and thus taxes of a burdensome nature were indirectly laid upon the people." -
Joseph Story in III Commentaries on the Constitution, at 17 ["Powers of
Congress -- Coinage"] (Cambridge, 1833). [return]

[75] "A bank has a direct relation to the power of
borrowing money, because it is an unusual, and in sudden emergencies, an essential
instrument, in the obtaining of loans to Government. A nation is threatened with a war;
large sums are wanted on a sudden [basis] to make the requisite preparations; taxes are
laid for this purpose; but it requires time to obtain the benefit of them; anticipation is
indispensable. If there is a bank, the supply can at once be had; if there be none, loans
from individuals must be sought. The progress of these is often too slow for the exigency;
in some situations they are not practical at all." - Joseph Story in III
Commentaries on the Constitution, at 139 [footnote -- "Powers of Congress --
Bank"] (Cambridge, 1833). [return]

[76] "We do not propose to dilate at length upon the
circumstances in which the country was placed when Congress attempted to make Treasury
Notes a Legal Tender. They are of too recent occurrence to justify enlarged description.
Suffice it to say that a Civil War was then raging which seriously threatened the
overthrow of the Government and the destruction of the Constitution itself. It demanded
the equipment and support of large armies and navies, and the employment of money to an
extent beyond the capacity of all ordinary sources of supply. Meanwhile, the public
Treasury was nearly empty, and the credit of the Government, if not stretched to its
utmost tension, had become nearly exhausted. Moneyed institutions had advanced largely of
their means, and more could not be expected of them. They had been compelled to suspend
specie payments. Taxation was inadequate to pay even the interest on the debt already
incurred, and it was impossible to await the income of additional taxes. The necessity was
immediate and pressing. The army was unpaid. There was then due to the soldiers in the
field nearly a score of millions of dollars. The requisition from the War and Navy
Departments for supplies exceeded fifty millions, and the current expenditure was over one
million per day. The entire amount of coin in the country, including that in private
hands, as well as that in banking institutions, was insufficient to supply the need of the
Government for three months, had it all poured into the Treasury. Foreign credit we had
none. We say nothing of the overhanging paralysis of trade, and of business generally,
which threatened loss of confidence in the ability of the Government to maintain its
continued existence, and therewith the complete destruction of all remaining national
credit.

"It was at this time and in such circumstances that Congress was called upon
to devise means for maintaining the army and navy, for securing the large supplies of
money needed and, indeed, for the preservation of the Government created by the
Constitution. It was at such a time and in such an emergency that nothing else would have
supplied the absolute necessities of the Treasury, that nothing else would have enabled
the Government to maintain its armies and navies, that nothing else would have saved the
Government and the Constitution from destruction, while the Legal Tender Acts would, could
any one be bold enough to assert that Congress transgressed its powers? Or if these
enactments did not work these results, can it be maintained now that they were not for a
legitimate end, or `appropriate and adapted to that end?' in the language of Chief Justice
Marshall? That they did work such results is not to be doubted. Something revived the
drooping faith of the people; something brought immediately to the Government's aid the
resources of the nation, and something enabled the successful prosecution of the war, and
the preservation of national life. What was it, if not the Legal Tender enactments?"
- Knox vs. Lee, 79
U.S. 457, at 539 (1871). [return]

[79] As a point of beginning, Article I, Section 10 limits
itself to the States ["No State shall..."], and not to the Congress.

"The states can no longer declare what shall be money, or regulate its
value." - Knox vs. Lee, 79 U.S.
457, at 545 (1871).

Protestors trying to argue now that Article I, Section 10 restrains the Congress --
meaning something directly contrary to what is written, is considerable foolishness. [return]

[80] The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787
[Yale University Press, New Haven (1937); 4 volumes]. [return]

[81] See The Federal Taxing Power as a Means of
Establishing a Unified Banking System, Notes ["Legislation"], 46 Harvard Law
Review 143 (1932). [return]

[82] "It is absolutely essential to independent national
existence that Government should have a firm hold on the two great Sovereign
instrumentalities of the sword and the purse, and the right to wield them without
restriction on occasions of national peril. In certain emergencies Government must have at
its command, not only the personal services -- the bodies and lives -- of its Citizens,
but the lessor, though not less essential, power of absolute control over the resources of
the country. Its armies must be filled, and its navies manned, by the Citizens in person.
Its materials of war, its munitions, equipment, and commissary stores must come from the
industry of the country. This can only be stimulated into activity by a proper financial
system, especially as regards the currency." - Knox vs. Lee, 79 U.S.
457 [Justice Bradley, concurring] (1871). [return]

[83] "The power of Congress over interstate commerce is
`complete in itself, may be executed to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations
other than are prescribed in the Constitution'." - United States vs. Darby, 312 U.S.
100, at 114 (1940). [return]

[84] Remember the Legal Tender statutes were born in the fires
of the Civil War, when there was a great exigency and importance associated with the idea
of raising a lot of money very quickly; yet, there were also disagreements on the floor of
the Congress, and reservations were expressed then as to the Constitutionality of the
proposed paper money that would be circulating:

"The sum of the whole argument has been made in favor of the Constitutionality
of the power of Congress to declare the Treasury notes contemplated by this bill a legal
tender in payment of all debts, public and private, may be stated in these three
propositions:

"First, Congress may declare these notes a legal tender because it is not
inhibited;

"Secondly, the Government must maintain itself, and Congress may exercise all
the power and adopt any measure it judges necessary for that object;

"Thirdly, that the power to declare these notes a legal tender is a means
necessary and proper to the full execution of the power to regulate commerce.

"This provision is as inexpedient as it is unconstitutional. It is a
legislative declaration of national bankruptcy. It is saying to the world that this
Government is unable to meet its obligations at their real value; and must compound with
its creditors at a discount...

"This provision attempts the impossible thing of giving to paper the value of
gold..."

[85] Edwin Vieira represented Richard Solyom in a Stated
related Eminent Domain Proceeding, and challenged the right of a State to force the
acceptance of Federal Reserve Notes as the quid pro quo for his land that the State
wanted to grab. Edwin Vieira argued the monetary disabilities of Article I, Section 10 in
an action against a STATE, which at least is a correct point of beginning --a lot more
than what I can say for Tax Protestors throwing Article I, Section 10 arguments at The
Congress. Edwin Vieira also wrote a book discussing the monetary powers and
disabilities of the United States Constitution; see Pieces of Eight by Edwin
Vieira, Jr. [Devin-Adair, Old Greenwich, Connecticut (1983)]. [return]

[86] You lawyers use that license of your's as a tool to
impress and intellectually intimidate people, and since that is your standard, I would
then hold you to it and order your disbarment if I had any supervisory jurisdictional
interest in your license, just like Jerome Daly from Minnesota was once suspended from the
Practice of Law for his flaky money arguments. In the Justice of the Peace Court
for Credit River, Minnesota, on December 7, 1968, Jerome Daly once scored an impressive
victory before a jury, on what was largely a stipulated factual setting of Failure of
Consideration on a $14,000 mortgage that Jerome Daly had defaulted on. Seemingly, he
was off to a good start, but a continuing series of rebuffments later on before judges
cast his money arguments off on an illicit tangent, and when he refused to back off, his
license was suspended. [return]

[89] When I advocate folks taking cognizance of the fact that
the King has many different independent sources of jurisdiction to pull from in order to
justify the existence of the Federal Reserve Board and those paper notes that his Legal
Tender statutes have designated to be his currency, please do not construe that with any
philosophical inclination on my part that might appear to favor the King issuing out such
paper based circulating instruments that excite Gremlins so much in elevated enscrewment
ecstacy; I am different from Protestors only in the limited sense that I always evaluate
both sides of an issue before throwing something at a Judge. Refusing to badmouth
adversaries does not mean that you agree with them philosophically, nor does it
inferentially suggest that one is in alignment with the adversary's objectives; refusing
to badmouth means no more than realizing that the true remedy for correcting these
currency Torts will not lie in a Courtroom. Therefore, by examining the case from the
adversary's perspective, frequently I uncover real error in positions taken by Protestors,
but by examining the case from the King's perspective, that does not mean that I am
sympathetic with the King's modus operandi or his objectives. Unlike Protestors, I
do not walk into a judicial confrontation with anyone assuming that I am absolutely right,
convinced that there is nothing the other fellow has to say that is of any value, and then
simply expecting justice to be administered in my favor -- such a person is necessarily in
a very unteachable state of mind -- he will miss many low profile movements going
on that are suggestive of error. There may very well be some error in my position that I
did not see (or understand the significance of), so my excursions into judicial arenas are
always exploratory in nature, and I keep myself in a teachable state of mind (a modus
operandi Protestors would be wise to consider emulating). [return]

[90] Some Federal Reserve Protestors I know are planning to
throw some novel protesting arguments at Federal Judges. Having concluded that quoting
Constitutional restrainments is unlikely to perfect judicial dissolution of the Federal
Reserve System [and correctly so as a factual matter], these Protestors have decided to
step down one level and just cite judicial reasoning in an attempt to dismantle a small
appendage of the Fed, called the Federal Open Market Committee, or FOMC. By
researching Supreme Court cases back in the 1930's, an era when Judicial annulment of
Nelson Rockefeller's social welfare lex [through his public nominee, imp FDR] was
in vogue, these Protestors intend to cite Cases like:

and then pursuant to reasoning in those Cases, argue that the delegation of
regulatory commercial matters by the Congress to a non-juristic business association of
some type, is unConstitutional:

"But would it be seriously contended that Congress could delegate its
legislative authority to trade or industrial associations or groups as to empower them to
enact the laws they deem to be wise and beneficent for the rehabilitation and expansion of
their trade or industry? Could trade or industrial associations or groups be constituted
legislative bodies for that purpose because such associations or groups are familiar with
the problems of their enterprises? And could an effort of that sort be made valid by such
a preface of generalities as to permissible aims as we find in [this National
Industrial Recovery Act that the Supreme Court is about to run into the ground]? The
answer is obvious. Such a delegation of legislative power is unknown to our Law and is
utterly inconsistent with the Constitutional prerogatives and duties of Congress." - Schechter
Poultry vs. United States, 295
U.S. 495, at 537 (1935).

No where in the Constitution does it state that "... the Congress shall not
delegate any of its regulatory powers over Commerce to business associations..." --
as there are numerous negative restrainments and positive requirements deemed binding on
the Congress, but no where appearing in the Constitution; many are reasonably inferred as
existing incidental to what the Constitution otherwise expressly mandates.

By going after just the Federal Open Market Committee appendage within the
Fed, and not the Fed itself, these Protestors are emulating a successful Modus Operandi
used extensively by Gremlins themselves -- by selectively hacking away at something here a
little, and there a little -- slowly and patiently.

Whether or not these Protestors will ultimately succeed is inconclusive at the
present time. There is some merit to their Delegation Question arguments as limited
just to the Federal Open Market Committee itself within the Fed; and these
arguments are not overruled by the other wide ranging fundamental sources of
jurisdictional fuel the King has to create the larger Federal Reserve.

... And for Protestors searching for something to throw at the Gremlin's enrichment
Goliath, that's enough.

I am concerned about whether or not these Protestors can create a sound Justiciable
Controversy, which is another question; to the extent that the Federal Open Market
Committee massages around and regulates with juristic force banks and related
financial institutions, Standing is necessarily limited to the affected parties
absent an evidentiary presentation of the cascading train of damages originating within
the inner sanctums of the FOMC, that were eventually experienced by the Plaintiff. I would
feel more comfortable with the probable outcome of this impending Case if an FOMC
regulated institution itself appeared as the Plaintiff. Nevertheless, these Protestors
will find that judicial reaction will be mixed -- there are Federal Judges who are
sympathetic with their arguments (as there is merit to them), while there are other tough
cookie Federal Judges who will take advantage of the factual opportunity this
impending Case presents to them, by throwing snortations at the Protestors. [return]

[91] Gremlin Zbigniew Brzezinski writing in Between Two
Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Age, once advocated that the fiction of
Sovereignty must be replaced with reality:

"The doctrine of sovereignty created the institutional basis for challenging
the secular authority of established religion, and this challenge in turned paved the way
for the emergence of the abstract conception of the nation-state. Sovereignty vested in
the people, instead of Sovereignty vested in the king, was the consummation of the process
which in the two centuries preceding the French and American revolutions radically altered
the structure of authority in the West and prepared the ground for a new dominant concept
of reality...

"The nation-state as a fundamental unit of man's organized life has ceased to
be the principal creative force: `International banks and multinational corporations are
acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the
nation-state.' But as the nation-state is gradually yielding its sovereignty, the
psychological importance of the national community is rising, and the attempt to establish
an equilibrium between the imperatives of the [Corporate Socialist Rockefeller Cartel's]
new internationalism and the need for a more intimate national community is the source of
frictions and conflicts." - Gremlin Zbigniew Brzezinski in Between Two Ages:
America's Role in the Technetronic Age, at 70 and 56 [Viking Press, New York City
(1970)]. [return]

[92] Juristic institutions descend to the level of Commercial
game players whenever they enter into the world of Commerce; so it can be argued that
Sovereignty takes a back seat under some circumstances [this interesting Supreme Court
Doctrine on the declension in status and loss of Sovereignty whenever the King enters into
Commerce, appears in this Letter later with discussing those circulating evidences of
debt, Federal Reserve Notes]. [return]

[93] For example, the original draft versions of the Second
and Fifth Amendments were far more specific and restrictive than the negotiated comprised
milktoast versions that finally made it through the Congress of 1787. Yes, the
Constitution was an Inspired Document, but an inspired document does not
mean Perfect Document:

"We believe that God raised up George Washington, that He raised up Thomas
Jefferson, that He raised up Benjamin Franklin and those other Patriots who carved out
with their swords and with their pens the character and stability of this great Government
which they hoped would stand forever, an asylum for the oppressed of all nations, where no
man's religion would be questioned, no man would be limited in his honest service to his
Maker, so long as he did not infringe upon the rights of his fellow men. We believe those
men were inspired to do their work, as we do that Joseph Smith was inspired to begin this
work; just as Galileo, Columbus, and other mighty men of old... were inspired to gradually
pave the way leading to this Dispensation; Sentinels, standing at different periods down
the centuries, playing their parts as they were inspired of God; gradually dispelling the
darkness as they were empowered by their Creator so to do, that in culmination of the
grand scheme of schemes, this great nation, the Republic of the United States, might be
established upon this land as an asylum for the oppressed; a resting place [a sanctuary]
it might be said, for the Ark of the Covenant, where the Temple of our God might be
built; where the Plan of Salvation might be introduced and practiced in freedom,
and not a dog would wag his tongue in opposition to the purposes of the Almighty. We
believe that this was His object in creating the Republic of the United States; the only
land where His work could be commenced or the feet of his people come to rest. No other
land had such liberal institutions, had adopted so broad a platform upon which all men
might stand. We give glory to those Patriots for the noble work they did; but we given
first glory to God, our Father and their Father, who inspired them. We take them by the
hand as brothers. We believe they did nobly their work, even as we would fain do ours,
faithfully and well, that we might not be recreant in the eyes of God, for failing to
perform the mission to which He has appointed us." - Orson F. Whitney, in a discourse
delivered at the Tabernacle on April 19, 1885; 26 Journal of Discourses 194, at 200
[London (1886)]. [return]

[94] For example, in the Continental Congress on August 28th,
1787, "Article 12 was being discussed. Article 12 was proposed to be as follows:

"Article XII. No state shall coin money; nor grant letters of marque and
reprisals; nor enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; nor grant any title of
Nobility."

"Mr. Wilson and Mr. Roger Sherman moved to insert after the words coin
money the words to emit bills of credit, nor make any thing but gold and silver
coin a tender in payment of debts, thus making those prohibitions against paper money
absolute.

"Mr. Ghorum thought the purpose would be well secured by the provision of
Article XIII, which makes the consent of the General Legislature necessary, and in that
mode, no opposition would be excited; whereas an absolute prohibition of paper money would
rouse the most desperate opposition from its partizans.

"Mr. Sherman thought this a favorable crisis for crushing paper money. If the
consent of the Legislature could authorize emissions of it, the friends of paper money
would make every exertion to get into the legislature in order to license it." - see
Max Farrand's II Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at page 439 [Yale
University Press, New Haven (1911-1937)].

Notice how Mr. Sherman and Mr Ghorum were concerned, knowledgeable and aware of the
exterior opposition to prohibiting the emission of paper bills. There was opposition lying
around the Countryside, opposed to making hard gold and silver mandatory with no
legislative discretion allowed to substitute paper bills for gold and silver coin. So the
reason why we have fraudulent Federal Reserve Notes running around today is because our
Founding Fathers failed to tie the King down yesterday -- and Federal Judges are not
Commie pinkos when tossing out arguments attacking Federal Reserve Notes. Our Founding
Fathers specifically declined to make explicit and blunt prohibitions against the emission
of paper bills because they knew then that few people wanted such a mandatory restrainment
operating on the Congress, and our Fathers in 1787 did not want to create opposition to
the proposed new Constitution designed to replace the Articles of Confederation. So
what we are left with today is the milktoast of Article I, Section 8. Gremlins have merely
take advantage of what our Fathers circumvented back then; and our Fathers found
themselves in such a position because a lot of folks did not want prohibitions against the
emission of paper bills. We did this to ourselves, and Patriots are snickering at the
wrong people. [return]

[95] Alexander Hamilton was born Alexander Levine, of Jewish
lineage, in St. Croix, the West Indies. After changing his name and his geographical
situs, he married Elizabeth Schuyler, the second daughter of Phillip Schuyler, at the
bride's home in Albany, New York, on December 14, 1780. The bride's mother was Catherine
van Rensselaer, daughter of Colonel John R. van Rensselaer, who was the son of Hendrik,
the grandson of Killiaen, the first Partroon, and Engeltke (Angelica) Livingston. The
bride had been characterized as:

"... a brunette with the most good natured, dark, lovely eyes that I ever saw,
which threw a beam of good temper and benevolence over her entire countenance."

The bride was just over 23, and the groom was 25. Alexander's courtship with
Elizabeth that year had been very brief, as the arranged marriage that it was. While
others have uncovered payment records in the British Museum in London from the Rothschilds
to their nominee Alexander Hamilton, an examination of his political orientation
[particularly his drive to create a national bank] magnifies his Gremlin stature. There is
quite a large number of Alexander Hamilton related biographics and profile sketches
floating around. See The Intimate Life of Alexander Hamilton, by Allan Hamilton
[Charles Scribner's Sons, New York (1910) [quote on the bride's description, id., at page
95]; and Alexander Hamilton: Youth to Maturity, 1755 -1788, by Broades Mitchell
[MacMillian Company, New York (1957)]. [return]

[96] There has always been a period of Time in the United
States when well sponsored imps have ascended into positions of political prominence;
sometimes into Juristic Institutions, and other times they operate on the outside, perhaps
as a director of a foundation, a historian, or a university professor of some type. One
such imp, financially sponsored by Rockefeller Cartel interests, has been Rexford Tugwell,
who likes to create the image that he is a historian. In one of his books, Entitled The
Emerging Constitution, he really shows off his Gremlin colors. He tries to throw
derogatory characterizations at our Founding Fathers by pointing attention over to such
things as the acreage of land once owned by Thomas Jefferson and other economic profile
information; but the fact that the Four Rockefeller Brothers are financially sponsoring
little Tug himself to write a new Constitution to enrich the Brothers is, of course,
something this little imp, speaking with a forked tongue, remains silent on. And he has,
of course, just the right solution for all those crucial American legal ailments: A
new Constitution -- designed along Corporate Socialist lines that would enrich his
sponsors in the Rockefeller Cartel. Under this new Constitution, large private
corporations assume several of the functions once held exclusively by Juristic
Institutions -- such as criminal prosecutions, the regulation of business, issuance of
commercial licenses, and, of course, there is no Trial by Jury. Rexford Tugwell shows off
his true Gremlin colors by coming down on those great triple Gremlin irritants: Laissez-Faire,
Individualism, and the Independence of national Sovereignty:

"So much for the Constitution. But it did not end there; continuing suspicion
of authority allowed laissez-faire to thrive beyond its time and allowable scope;
and the propensity to contrive produced an affluence we did not use to advantage because
we held to individualism and independence in theory although we created a
system of social and economic complexes requiring integration and organic management. If
these generalizations are accepted, they describe a curious and unanticipated outcome. It
is not certain, for instance, how much of our affluence is owed to the individualism
that now threatens to choke its own further growth...

"Yet the myth of independence and individualism persists, mostly
nowadays as a political appeal, but it furnishes assurances to unthinking citizens. These
words are regarded with cynical tolerance by intellectuals; but they still have an appeal
to the electorate, and they will until a more realistic approach has made its way into
people's minds...

"The laws establishing [administrative] agencies did not clearly recognize
that the businesses involved were using resources belonging to the people, and lacking
this, their authority to make allocations was hazy. They were handicapped also by the
prevailing belief in laissez-faire..." - Rexford Tugwell in The Emerging
Constitution, at 17, 27 and 145 [Harper & Row, New York (1974); Sponsored by the
Rockefeller's Fund for the Republic in Santa Monica, California].

Notice what difficulty Gremlins like little Tug have in restraining themselves not
to throw invectives at those heinous institutions of Individualism, Laissez-Faire,
and the Independence of national Sovereignty. Gremlins do not want Individuals
to amount to something great on their own volition [they want men to remain boys, and for
everyone to keep their diapers on by looking to Government for security, for protection,
and as a source of remedies for society's problems]; they do not want Laissez-Faire
[they want total top down Government control of everything, so that when Government
controls it, then they can control it]; and Gremlins do not want the world divided up into
multiple independent Sovereignties [they want a One World Government, under their
control]. Those are the great Gremlin objectives, and getting rid of that United States
Constitution --and everything else Majestic, Celestial, and developmental of individuals
that it represents --is a glorious dream for imps to bask in. [For other attacks on the
Founding Fathers by sponsored self-proclaimed "historians," see imp Charles
Beard in An Economic Interpretation of the United States Constitution [The Free
Press, New York (1913)]; who uncovered detailed financial profile information on the
Founders, and then came to the conclusion, as he was paid to do, that the Constitution was
just a legal instrument to self-enrich its creators. Like his brother Rexford Tugwell,
Charles Beard should be the very last one to talk.] [return]

[97] If you Conservatives were smart, you would not
consider donating money or voting for any candidate expressing sympathy with either the
milktoast Democratic or Republican Party Platforms; such a candidate is no adversary of
Gremlins. As far as I am concerned, if in fact the Gremlins can pull off this
Constitutional switch at the impending Constitutional Convention, then they fully deserve
the avalanche of benefits such a juristic instrument will generate for them. I admire
victors of battles for their tactical savior faire, even though I may not be
sympathetic with their doctrines or objectives. [return]

[98] "In connection with the attack on the United States,
the Lord told the Prophet Joseph Smith [that] there would be an attempt to overthrow the
country by destroying the Constitution. Joseph Smith predicted that the time would come
when the Constitution would hang as it were by a thread, and at that time... the Elders of
Israel, widely spread over the nation, will, at the crucial time... [participate by
providing] the necessary balance of strength to save the institutions of Constitutional
Government. Now is the time to get ready." - Ezra Taft Benson in Conference
Reports, page 70 (October, 1961). [return]

[99] If you are unaware of the interest certain Gremlins have
towards using that impending Convention for their own proprietary purposes, then consider
these words from our Gremlin friend extraordinaire, Zbigniew Brzezinski:

"The approaching two hundredth anniversary of the Declaration of Independence
could justify the call for a national constitutional convention to reexamine the nation's
formal institutional framework. Either 1976 or 1987 -- the two hundredth anniversary of
the Constitution -- could serve as a target date for culminating a national dialogue on
the relevance of existing arrangements, the workings of the representative process, and
the desirability of imitating the various European regionalization reforms and of
streamlining the administrative structure. More important still, either date would provide
a suitable occasion for redefining the meaning of modern democracy -- a task admittedly
challenging but not necessarily more so than when it was undertaken by the founding
fathers -- and for setting ambitious and concrete social goals." - Gremlin Zbigniew
Brzezinski in Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Age, at 258
[Viking Press, New York City (1970)].

Those "social goals" that Brzezinski wants involve a New Economic
Order which Brzezinski openly admits would seriously threaten "the traditional
American values of individualism, free enterprise, the work ethic, and efficiency."
-- but pesky little anachronisms like those are nuisances today, and his employer David
Rockefeller has no room for nuisances. What David decrees is what's important, and David
has decreed that Corporate Socialism is important.